Myth of economic imperialism
We, as a nation, are the greatest inventors of and believers in conspiracy theories
By Dr Khalil Ahmad
We are a lot of schizophrenics who are "usually characterised by withdrawal from reality, illogical patterns of thinking, delusions and hallucinations, and accompanied in varying degrees by other emotional, behavioural or intellectual disturbances." Our 'defence mechanism' has turned us into one of the greatest inventors of and believers in conspiracy theories. We consider and deal with the whole world as if it is our enemy. This is how we see the people and the reality existing outside of us.

Who rules the roost?
If nothing else, Benazir's return has demonstrated the PPP's ability to mobilise the masses
By Aasim Sajjad Akhtar
Now that Benazir Bhutto is finally home, the endless pontificating about her character, savvy (or lack thereof) and 'corruption' can finally be put to rest. Objectively speaking, one cannot help wonder why Benazir gets so much attention from intellectuals, generals and fellow politicians alike. In any case, rather than hear everyone else talk about Benazir, the Pakistani people will now be able to hear it straight from the horse's mouth.

analysis

There are no two views that the first part of the lawyers' movement in Pakistan was successful, with the reinstatement of Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry. The lawyers who spearheaded this movement were not only content with the outcome, but also wanted to do more. Many stalwarts of the movement made it public at the time that their struggle would continue till the restoration of true democracy and the Constitution in the country.

The lawyers' community started the second phase of its movement with renewed vigour, but very soon it was felt that certain differences have been created amongst its ranks. Outspoken government functionaries and political leaders -- including Chaudhry Shujaat Hussain, president of the Pakistan Muslim League-Quaid (PML-Q) -- started spitting venom against the lawyers' community and criticised it for playing in the hands of vested interests. The media was also castigated for blowing things out of proportion and giving undue coverage to the lawyers' movement. In this context, a deliberate attempt was made on September 10 by the state machinery to tame both the media and the lawyers' community through violence.

While government aides were applying each and every tactic to discredit the lawyers' movement, a group of lawyers also joined in by condemning the movement's leaders for serving the interests of certain political parties. Their viewpoint was that some political parties, which had lost public support and which did not have enough manpower to hold effective protest rallies, were trying to cash in on the successful movement of lawyers.

Here one may recall the statement of Muhammad Nawaz Kharal, president of the Federal Capital Lawyers Forum, in which he had accused former Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) president Munir A Malik of using the association to serve the purposes of political parties. He had also told the media that Munir A Malik, who had himself been a lawyer of the National Accountability Bureau (NAB) and the Privatisation Commission, was now instigating the lawyers' community to launch a movement against the government.

On the other hand, Munir A Malik had hinted at "black sheep" among the lawyers' community and vowed not to stop the movement at any cost. A split was also seen between the Lahore High Court Bar Association and the Lahore Bar Association over the holding of All Pakistan Lawyers' Conference in Lahore as well as observing a countrywide strike on September 6 on the call of Munir A Malik.

While this blame game goes on, there is a growing concern among different quarters that the government has devised a comprehensive plan to dent the lawyers' movement by offering them lucrative jobs. These jobs can be in the prosecution or the defender service or, for that matter, in the office of the Advocate General. There are allegations also that the government is especially offering jobs to those young lawyers who were the real force behind the success of the lawyers' movement.

According to media reports, about 330 posts of defender general, additional defender general, district defender and public defender have been created in the Punjab Law Department. These jobs have apparently been created to provide free legal assistance to the poor across the province and are in addition to the 900 plus jobs that have already been created in the prosecution service.

Chaudhry Muhammad Ishaq, member of the Punjab Bar Council, tells TNS that never in the past jobs have been doled out to lawyers in this manner. He says the number of posts of law officers have multiplied over the last couple of months. "Most of these jobs have been offered to selected lawyers, while many others are waiting in queues," he laments, adding that the aspirants are posing to be more obedient than those who have already got the jobs.

Ishaq informs that the jobs in the defender service are quite lucrative. For example, the post of defender general falls in BPS-20 and offers a monthly salary in the range of Rs 150,000 to Rs 200,000; the post of additional defender general falls in BPS-19 and offers a monthly salary of Rs 100,000; the post of district defender falls in BPS-18 and offers a monthly salary in the range of Rs 32,000 to Rs 35,000; and the post of public defender falls in BPS-17 with a monthly salary of Rs 28,000. The fact that the Lahore High Court has given a stay order against recruitments in the defender service gives credence to the suspicion that these jobs are being given as a bribe.

A senior lawyer, who has recently resigned from government service, tells TNS on condition of anonymity that a major violation of service rules is the appointment of prosecutors in their home districts. These prosecutors have been handpicked by the ruling party's MPAs from their electoral constituencies, and will play a major role in local politics as well as the forthcoming general elections. "There are reports that the government is considering appointment of these prosecutors as presiding officers in the forthcoming general elections. If this happens, the chances of transparency at the polling stations will be compromised," he believes, adding that it were these prosecutors who were made to appear as independent lawyers recently by the Punjab government and raise slogans in favour of President General Pervez Musharraf.

Former SCBA president Hamid Khan tells TNS that despite all the efforts made by the government, the lawyers' community is united for a noble cause. "There have always been pro-establishment lawyers, but it is a matter of pride that the bar councils on the whole have stuck to their oath. I can proudly say that the common lawyers have stood undeterred even in the presence of opportunists like Attorney General of Pakistan Malik Qayyum," he says. Hamid alleges that Malik Qayyum has got approved hundreds of jobs and advisories from the government, and is offering them to his near and dear ones.

"You may call it a loot sale of jobs. I have heard that he is even offering hefty per diem to jobseekers who accompany him to Islamabad or any other city." Hamid finds it strange that the government is giving in to every demand of Malik Qayyum despite the fact that he miserably failed to dent the lawyers' movement.

Hafiz Javed, spokesperson of the Punjab Law Department, tells TNS that it is unfair to allege that the jobs in the Punjab Prosecution Department and the Punjab Defender Service are being awarded as a bribe to members of the lawyers' community. He says the jobs in the prosecution service were awarded under the Punjab government's contract policy to lawyers and would be regularised once the Punjab Public Service Commission holds an exam for this purpose. "All these contractual jobs were given just to make the system function. If someone says that these jobs were awarded out of rules to break the momentum of the lawyers' movement, he is surely mistaken," he adds.

Javed says it is not for the first time that lawyers are being given government jobs. There have always been law officers, state counsels, etc. The state being a litigant itself has all the right in the world to hire lawyers and there is no need to suspect this act, he says. The prosecutor and defender services have been envisaged under the Access to Justice Programme, being funded by the Asian Development Bank (ADB), the spokesperson adds.

Javed contends that the contractual appointments in the prosecution service were finalised well before the filing of reference against the chief justice in March this year. He adds that prosecutors have been posted in their home districts, as they are well aware of their respective local crime scenes. He also rules out the possibility of prosecutors being appointed as presiding officers in their constituencies as, according to him, most of them come from the education and health departments.

This piece is not about the latest robot camera probe sent into a hitherto inaccessible chamber of the Great Pyramid in Egypt. No, this is about a cold, foreboding structure of brown sandstone in New Haven, Connecticut, USA, inside which lives one of the most heavily shrouded secret societies in American history -- Yale University's super-elite Skull and Bones, a 200-year-old organisation whose roster is stocked with some of the United States' most prominent families: Bush, Harriman, Phelps, Rockefeller, Taft and Whitney.

Several nieces and nephews of mine have studied at Yale and have all done very well, receiving glowing reports from their academic supervisors. In fact, one niece of mine has just done her PhD from there. For reasons that will soon become clear, however, I am happy -- make that very, very happy -- to be able to report that none of my nieces and nephews could have qualified for membership of the Skull and Bones society.

American journalist Alexandra Robbins, herself a member of another of Yale's secret societies, interviewed more than a hundred Bonesmen and writes about the rituals that make up the organisation. The title of her book is Secrets of the Tomb: Skull and Bones, the Ivy League, and the Hidden Paths of Power.

America's Ivy League universities are full of societies and clubs, some public and some very private. But none is as secret as Yale's Skull and Bones -- a tiny, mysterious society that has somehow spawned three US presidents, including William Howard Taft, George W Bush (aka "The Bomber of Baghdad") and his father George H W Bush.

Skull and Bones cloak-and-dagger secrecy has prompted people worldwide to attribute to it some of the most staggering conspiracies in modern history -- as well as events, including the dropping of atom bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the rise of Hitler, and the invasion of the Bay of Pigs. From their nearly windowless crypt in the middle of the Yale campus, the Bonesmen, it is said, plot to dominate the world.

In Secrets of the Tomb, Robbins claims to have slipped through the veil of secrecy to investigate, through society documents and interviews with dozens of members, the truth about Skull and Bones' influence and operations.

Robbins writes: "Sometime in the early 1830s, a Yale student named William H Russell -- the future valedictorian of the class of 1833 -- travelled to Germany to study for a year. Russell came from an inordinately wealthy family that ran one of America's most despicable business organisations of the nineteenth century: Russell and Company, an opium empire. Russell would later become a member of the Connecticut state legislature, a general in the Connecticut National Guard, and the founder of the Collegiate and Commercial Institute in New Haven.

"While in Germany, Russell befriended the leader of an insidious German secret society that hailed the death's head as its logo. Russell soon became caught up in this group, itself a sinister outgrowth of the notorious eighteenth-century society, the Illuminati. When Russell returned to the United States, he found an atmosphere so Anti-Masonic that even his beloved Phi Beta Kappa, the honour society, had been unceremoniously stripped of its secrecy.

"Incensed, Russell rounded up a group of the most promising students in his class -- including Alphonso Taft, the future secretary of war, attorney general, minister to Austria, ambassador to Russia, and father of future president William Howard Taft -- and out of vengeance constructed the most powerful secret society the United States has ever known."

Robbins tells us that the men called their organisation the Brotherhood of Death, or, more informally, the Order of Skull and Bones. They adopted the numerological symbol 332 because their group was the second chapter of the German organisation and founded in 1832. They worshipped the goddess Eulogia, celebrated pirates and "plotted an underground conspiracy to dominate the world."

Fast-forward 175 years, to post 9/11 USA, circa 2007. According to Robbins, Skull and Bones has curled its tentacles into every corner of the American society. "This tiny club," she writes, "has set up networks that have thrust three members into the most powerful political position in the world. And the group's influence is only increasing. The secret society is now, as one historian admonishes, 'an international mafia, unregulated and all but unknown'."

According to Robbins: "In its quest to create a New World Order that restricts individual freedom and places ultimate power solely in the hands of a small cult of wealthy, prominent families, Skull and Bones has already succeeded in infiltrating nearly every major research, policy, financial, media and government institution in the country. Skull and Bones, in fact, has been running the United States for years."

Robbins tells us that "Skull and Bones cultivates its talent by selecting members from the junior class at Yale University, a school known for its strange, Gothic elitism and its rigid devotion to the past. The society screens its candidates carefully, favouring Protestants and, now, white Catholics, with special affection for the children of wealthy East Coast Skull and Bones members. Skull and Bones has been dominated by about two dozen of the country's most prominent families."

And here's the kicker. According to Robbins, the society encourages members' families to intermarry, "so that its power is consolidated." Robbins informs that "Skull and Bones' corporate shell, the Russell Trust Association, owns nearly all of the university's real estate, as well as most of the land in Connecticut. Skull and Bones has controlled Yale's faculty and campus publications, so that students cannot speak openly about it." It all sounds too deliciously sinister for words.

Robbins further tells us that as soon as initiates are allowed into the "tomb", a dark, windowless crypt in New Haven with a roof that serves as a landing pad for the society's private helicopter, they are sworn to silence and told they must forever deny that they are members of this organisation. And it works: no one has publicly breathed a word about his Skull and Bones membership, ever.

'We cannot make a lame duck parliament a lion,' said Justice Javaid Iqbal during the hearing of the constitutional petitions challenging General Pervez Musharraf's eligibility as the presidential candidate. These petitions were later dismissed on account of maintainability. The president is again in for five years, provided decision on other petitions against him does not become a bar.

Though the rising poverty and unemployment, as well as the unchecked corruption, have made life miserable for a vast majority of the common people, there is absolute silence as far as these issues are concerned. However, even in this silence, the discerning could see the clouds of a storm. Had there not been the chief justice's resistance, something similar would have happened sooner or later. Not that we plan things; no one has either time or capability to do so -- the political parties do not have organisational structure, the bureaucracy is busy with its nation-plundering business, and the army is commercially active everywhere.

The society was boiling with rage against an eight-year rule that has given the people nothing but miseries. Its anger has not yet dissipated. The lawyers' movement and the protests by the media were just the trailer, as the real storm is yet to come. The army and the ruling elite have demolished the 'paper' opposition only, while the real opposition is very much intact. The new setup should keep the rage of miserable masses in mind when it takes over the reins of the government.

The comment of the honourable judge was political in substance, but it was very much legal in spirit. What we do not comprehend is that the legal and political affairs are inseparable. For that matter, nothing -- not even the way we act, eat, drink, talk, sleep, think and walk -- is outside the political ambit. Isn't it the politics in the end that separates humans from animals? Animals have evolved their tiny societies, but they cannot improve upon them. In contrast, humans have the ability to bring about a change in their societies, if they intend to. Not exercising this ability makes humans live worse than animals do. We are not here referring only to our country; there are many more jungles in this world.

The honourable judge, through his comment, delivered the message that only a strong law-making body could defend itself. This is not true, as even legislators cannot defend themselves unless the environment is conducive. The question, then, is who will create such an environment -- is it the responsibility of politicians, the bureaucracy, the military or the judiciary?

'Environment' is collective dynamics of the major organs of the system (political parties, the bureaucracy, the judiciary and the military) that determines how people should live and manage their relationships. In a dynamic society, methodologies of management keep on changing till a certain social equilibrium is achieved. Economy is the most important factor that influences these methodologies. Difference in the tools of economy is what distinguishes one society from the other. Tools cannot be changed unless we know first how to make them. Here knowledge (knowing about the reality of things, including society) and its application come in handy.

The knowledge we have has come to us from the West. As we are not accepting it wholeheartedly, we cannot learn and apply it in a way to utilise even its minimum potential. That is why our society is static (as a nation we all are ducks that cannot fly, but can eat, drink, talk, sleep and die). Who will choose the meaningful knowledge and ensure its acceptability and utilisation? It is the same question as who will create the conducive environment -- the bureaucracy, the military, the judiciary or political parties?

The administration and its numerous organisations manage the society through implementation of the law and through undertaking public works. An administration -- honest and capable of taking initiatives -- can help reduce the responsibilities of politicians and the judiciary. After the promulgation of the National Reconstruction Ordinance, the need for an energised and fair-working administration has increased manifold. It is courtesy of history, from 1857 to 1947, that we have inherited some kind of Western administrative system, which despite indulging in mammoth corruption is still somewhat functional.

The judiciary is the smallest of the major state organs. It settles disputes between individuals, between individuals and the state, and between various organs of the state. In abnormal circumstances, where societies are in political turmoil, the judiciary may assume, though for a short while, political responsibility also. While settling disputes, the courts have to be fair. Justice, however, should not be blind even if the technicalities demand from it to be so.

A judge has to look into the goodness of things. A judgment must satisfy the requisites of collective well-being. Law is not like mathematics; it has an additional soul. It has also a social wisdom behind it. It has to be interpreted and used in a manner as to promote construction rather than destruction. However, on one social question justice must remain blind -- condoning monetary corruption through discretionary powers or through making of laws should not be taken as a constructive act. Monetary corruption is a malignant cancer that must be removed.

The military is by genes combative, and primarily its place is either on borders or in barracks. So, it has its own mini neat and clean society. It must remain within reasonable limits, numerically as well as in resource spending, save in emergencies. It must remain away from the core society as much as possible, save in situations where its services are required for assistance in disaster management. If it is oversized, then in underdeveloped countries it crosses limits; and instead of supporting political structures, it becomes a political structure in itself. If underdeveloped countries are also poor in resources, as is normally the case, the military indulges also in commercial activities to ensure availability of resources that it needs. Consequently, all this proves lethal for the nation. The separation of East Pakistan is a leading example in this regard.

We are living in modern, and not medieval, times. Our society demands good management, as its Western counterparts have. That our realities are different from those living in the West is a wrong and callous comparison. The irony is that those who are thoroughly Western in lifestyle or outlook seek refuge in this comparison. Since they are everywhere -- in political parties, the bureaucracy, the military and the judiciary -- and also enjoy a certain monopoly, they do not want to bring about a change in the system.

So, the question remains how to do this? The answer lies in knowledge, but acceptability of meaningful knowledge can only be ensured through massive interaction with the people, besides administrative and judicial support. It is only politicians who can mobilise the masses. The support of the masses acts also as a check on other organs of the state. Political parties, thus, are the prime catalysts for change. Our politicians will have to accept this challenge. They will have to understand that the logic of living for humans is different from the one that animals have. Also, they will have to make those who are 'averse to change the ruling elite', of which they may or not be a part, understand the same.

The top leadership of major political parties is incapable, as has been already proven. Let political parties give their second line leadership, and this directionless nation, a chance! The political responsibility assumed by their second line cadre and then by the lower cadres, including political workers, will help these political parties evolve an organisational structure. Once we have organised political parties around, an environment conducive for positive change will follow. This is what we need. We want to live like civilised humans, and not like animals.

We are a lot of schizophrenics who are "usually characterised by withdrawal from reality, illogical patterns of thinking, delusions and hallucinations, and accompanied in varying degrees by other emotional, behavioural or intellectual disturbances." Our 'defence mechanism' has turned us into one of the greatest inventors of and believers in conspiracy theories. We consider and deal with the whole world as if it is our enemy. This is how we see the people and the reality existing outside of us.

One should not mind it, as everyone is free to think, believe and act like he or she wishes. But it must be pointed out that such a lot of people can never learn. If one cannot learn, one cannot grow and prosper. One who is passive, submissive and docile -- one who is only the target of others and their conspiracies -- cannot be accused of doing anything wrong. So we wrongly assume that only we are the innocents, and the rest of the world wants to exploit and destroy us. We do nothing, hence we learn nothing; and consequently, neither we grow nor prosper.

Since my childhood, I am trying to solve one riddle that seems to be all-pervasive in Pakistan: why do the parents always blame other children for any bad behaviour or habits learned by their children? The answer is that we love to blame others. The same pattern of thinking and behaviour is replicated in all the other fields of life and learning -- in politics, in economics, in culture, in fact in all the branches of knowledge, we subscribe to the same conspiracy theories.

For any sane person, it is quite difficult to understand how the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the Asian Development Bank (ADB) force us to be exploited! How the United States or the European Union or the G-7 or the World Trade Organisation (WTO) compels us to become its stooges? How can they exploit us, unless some of us are not prepared to be their partners in such endeavours? My stance is that if such an exploitation is taking place, we have only ourselves to blame for it -- we should take the responsibility on our own shoulders rather than blaming others.

Many of us are fond of calling this world a world ridden with cut-throat competition only. But we cannot ignore the fact that there is much cooperation, partnering and mutual help also. Life is a phenomenon of interdependence and mutuality. Of course, we cannot take this world as always making room for us, extending help to us and rendering sacrifices for us. Also, why should it be so? As we know, to live and to live well, we need to work hard. It requires patient labour and continuous efforts to discover, create, invent and produce. We have to live in this world on our own, and not at the expense of others. We have to prove our worth, only then we are rewarded. We need to realise that, both individually as well as collectively.

Pragmatically speaking, can we stop or, for that matter, can anyone stop conspiracy theories? It is next to impossible. It is also misleading to go after stopping them or lamenting them; or justifying our own inaction, failure and irresponsibility on this pretext. History tells that conspirators succeed only when they find collaborators inside those against whom they conspire. Thus, it is ourselves who are our own enemies. It is amongst us that we have conspirators and conspiracies -- it is our own soil that proves fertile for them and it is these factors that help any conspiracy come true.

If we analyse the notion of economic imperialism in this context, it seems that it is but a myth. Indeed, it is our own being that we need to analyse and evaluate first. It is strange that we want all the international financial institutions and rich countries to help us, as if it is our privileged right. Would we be lending money to anybody without interest and conditionalities? Isn't it ourselves who need to be blamed squarely for misusing the foreign loans? In the following, I have tried to answer some of the main questions in this regard.

What is the way out of this mess? By looking inward, and taking up the responsibility for our own actions and inactions.

How can Pakistan get rid of its mounting debt? By curtailing the government expenditure to a bare minimum and reducing taxes, as it will spur growth.

How can Pakistan avoid more loans? By not taking more loans for public sector projects, as they are normally wasted, and instead assigning this responsibility to the private sector.

How can Pakistan resume economic sovereignty without isolating itself from the international community? In absolute terms, there is no sovereignty. When we ink an agreement with someone, we lose some of our sovereignty. We give and take. We should have an open heart and open arms. We should go for open and free trade, and we will be welcomed by the international community.

How can Pakistan safeguard and promote its own interests? It is ironic that we want others to help us, but at the same time want to safeguard and promote our own interests. Fortunately or unfortunately, the world is populated by many people other than us. They have their own interests to safeguard and promote, just like us. No doubt, there are mutual interests also. However, first we should be on our guard against the insiders / collaborators living amongst us. Then, we can go for such agreements that call for a win-win situation. We should be realistic, not self-seeking, in our dealings with others.

Is Pakistan in a position from which it is almost impossible to escape? No, nothing is impossible! It is not escape, but a relentless struggle, that we need. On the one hand, we need supremacy of the Constitution, an independent judiciary, democracy and the rule of law. On the other hand, we need economic freedom to prosper -- personal choice, voluntary exchange coordinated by markets, freedom to enter and compete in markets, and protection of people and their property from aggression by others.

US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice seemingly is trying her best to ensure the restoration of democracy in Pakistan. One of her subordinates J A Cohen explained to me at a meeting in the presence of Leslie M Tsou, of the US embassy in London, that the United States was concerned about the Pakistani youth who could become extremists. I asked him what he thought was the reason for this and was surprised by his answer: "It is the feeling of humiliation that makes them resort to extremism, and not the socio-economic conditions."

It is nice to know that the US, at least, has the recognition of these feelings of the youth in particular and the people in general. One also has to concede that the humiliation suffered by the people of Pakistan after successive military coups is the main reason for their hating the US, as Washington is traditionally considered to be supportive of military regimes.

The unconditional support provided by the US to President General Pervez Musharraf's military regime as an ally in the 'war on terror' provided the latter with a much-needed lifeline. Though the US appeared to be happy with Musharraf's performance, it failed to stop the increasing international awareness about the humiliation people feel under a military ruler. In this context, the recently-promulgated National Reconciliation Ordinance (NRO) can be seem as an attempt by Musharraf to show the US that he is genuinely trying to restore democracy by even reconciling with those who were subject to political victimisation before his military coup in 1999.

Considering the aborted attempt by Nawaz Sharif to return to Pakistan and Musharraf's previous rhetoric that Benazir Bhutto would never be allowed to come back to Pakistan while he remains in power, the NRO -- though far from being an ideal solution -- indicates a change in the direction: civil society, helped by US pressure and domestic political circumstances, enjoys an edge over the incumbent military regime.

Though military regimes are not seen as an honourable way of governance by any standards, successive military coups have dealt a strong blow to the building of institutions in Pakistan. The recent events have demonstrated the difference between a normal civil regime where institutions are supreme and the current governance structure where institutions have a very limited say. The self-restraint of Chief Justice of Pakistan Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry to preside over the high-profile cases against General Musharraf's election as the country's president in uniform demonstrate the judiciary's limitations. This also throws light on the limitations of institutions and the imperfections in the current governance structure in Pakistan. In such an environment, the NRO appears to be a transparent way of defining the rules of the game throughout this transition period.

The recent aborted attempt by Nawaz Sharif to return to the country and the Supreme Court's inability to interfere further explain the limitations of institutions in the present governance apparatus. In the absence of a civil regime and lack of institutions, and in the presence of this strange governance structure, extraordinary measures are required to restore the confidence of all the stakeholders. The recent lawyers' struggle for the independence of judiciary is highly appreciable, but the judiciary is still working under the umbrella of a military general, who being head of the state appoints the chief justice of Pakistan. In these extraordinary circumstances, the NRO seems an attempt to overcome these bottlenecks.

Having both positive and negative aspects, the Ordinance is being debated by analysts and common citizens across the country. Some analysts compare it with the 1995 Truth and Reconciliation Commission of South Africa, through which the post-apartheid government of the African National Congress adopted reconciliatory measures. Other analysts see it as a gesture of reconciliation between the military regime and ordinary citizens -- of course with some exemptions. They are not happy with the first analysis, as it compares Musharraf's rule to that of Nelson Mandela.

Nobody is saying that the NRO is a perfect recipe for the restoration of democracy in the country. Nobody is saying that Nawaz Sharif's aborted attempt was good for the country. There is, however, a fundamental difference between the Nawaz Sharif scenario and that of Benazir Bhutto. Nawaz Sharif made a deal with Musharraf after he had been convicted by the courts, whereas Benazir Bhutto is making a deal after successive governments have failed to prove her or her husband Asif Ali Zardari guilty before any court. Also, she is making a deal not to go out of the country, but to come into the country.

At this critical juncture in our country's political history, we are faced with an important question -- do we want to continue wasting our country's resources on political cases that are never going to be proved leading to any convictions? Can't we use the same money for the welfare of the poor or on providing jobs to the unemployed youth? It is high time for reconciliation. Most analysts have termed the NRO an ice-breaking initiative towards the restoration of democracy. The presence of a leader of a major party in Benazir Bhutto will pose a serious challenge to the military-backed politicians. This will also provide the people of the country with an opportunity to decide through their power of vote whom they think is fit to rule the country.

If NRO is an instrument available to a major political party like the PPP to become motivated with the return of its leader Benazir Bhutto, then it will create an atmosphere of political activism that will be beyond the control of either the PPP or Musharraf. The wave of political activism and democracy would affect all the masses irrespective of their party affiliations. The NRO, in conclusion, is better than nothing from a military dictator, so let us begin the process and move on to see what is next!

India's unilateral decision to encourage mountaineering and trekking expeditions to the disputed Siachen glacier appears to be ill-timed and provocative, particularly when its peace process with Pakistan is already under way to ease tensions in the region. The decision leads to a number of questions, the most important of which is: why India is taking this step? It is also important also to see why Pakistan is protesting against the Indian move? What is strategic significance of the Siachen glacier and what are the reasons for dispute over it? What are the ecological implications of the world's highest battlefield? How much cost are the two countries incurring on this conflict? What is the foremost stumbling block in the resolution of this dispute and how can we make progress towards this end?

There are so many glaciers and mountains in India that can give thrills in equal measure. Then why did the Indian leadership take this decision? An analyst describes it as an "inflammatory step", while another observes that the Indian Army is taking trekkers to the glacier simply to tell the world that if tourists can go to Siachen through India, the glacier must fall within its territory. In Pakistan's view, after the Indian aggression on April 13, 1984 (Operation Meghdoot), the glacier has become a conflict zone, and moves to make it a tourist hotspot could "vitiate the atmosphere for the ongoing peace process". Pakistan's objection is rooted in the fact that these international treks will give credence to the Indian claim that it is New Delhi that controls the glacier, and not Islamabad as it claims.

Each side accuses the other of "cartographic aggression". In 1949, just after India and Pakistan fought their first war over Jammu and Kashmir, the two neighbours agreed to a cease-fire line that ran north of the region and stopped short of Siachen. That point is still known by its map coordinates -- NJ-9842 on the Saltoro ridge. This was near the northern-most point where troops were deployed when the fighting ended in 1948. Though the cease-fire line subsequently changed into the Line of Control (LoC), after the Simla Agreement of 1972, its end points remained the same. The descriptive explanation of the boundary beyond NJ-9842 -- "thence North to the Glaciers" -- has created confusion. India believes that this means that the boundary would go north through the nearest watershed: the Saltoro ridge. Pakistan draws a straight line from NJ-9842 going northeast to the Karakoram pass. The former interpretation gives the control of the glacier to India, the latter to Pakistan.

The Siachen glacier has great significance for both Pakistan and India. According to Sumit Ganguly's book entitled Conflict Unending: India-Pakistan Tension since 1947, "the principal importance of the glacier appears to be its location". From Pakistan's perspective, by controlling top of the Siachen glacier, it could not only have an upper hand in Kashmir but also a safe trade route with China. Besides this, the glacier's melting waters are a major source of the Indus river. The Siachen's waters first feed the Nubra river (which flows eastward into India), then flows into the Shyok river and eventually joins the Indus river upstream near Skardu. One need not forget that it is water from the Indus river that billions of people in Pakistan depend on for their survival.

From India's perspective, Siachen's geo-strategic significance lies in the fact that its control would support the country's defence of Ladakh, Jammu and Kashmir against Pakistani and Chinese threats. It would prevent the outflanking of Indian forces in Leh and Kargil sectors, as well as the connecting of the Aksai Chin highway with the Karakoram pass. Control over Siachen would enable India to keep watch over the Karakoram highway and the Khunjarab pass, while fortifying its position in border negotiations with China.

As far as the cost of this Indian military adventure is concerned, the estimates vary. Lt Gen (r) V R Raghavan says in his definitive book entitled Siachen -- A Conflict Without End: "No one has an accurate assessment, but everyone has a figure to quote and a point to make." Without endorsing any estimate, he cites the figures of $1.9 million per day for India and $1 million per day for Pakistan. It is sad that the two developing countries of South Asia, instead of spending the available resources on the welfare of their respective populations, are wasting it to achieve irrational purposes.

Environmental security is also being threatened by the Siachen dispute -- the world's highest battlefield. Human activity has had one of its worst impacts here in the Himalayas with the glaciers melting at an unprecedented rate. The volume of the glacier has been reduced by 35 per cent over the last 23 years. According to an environmental research report, human activity on Siachen is accelerating the melting of the glacier. It also warns that if the Himalayan glacier started melting, it would be disastrous for both India and Pakistan.

Now the question is that how can we progress towards the resolution of this dispute? The first and foremost suggestion is to maintain and continue with the cease-fire line that has in place since November 2003 -- the two countries should refrain from any activity that threatens its status. Secondly, the two countries should work on the reduction of forces, and instead introduce technical means of monitoring and surveillance. Later, they can work out a complete demilitarisation plan. In the last stage, the demilitarised Siachen glacier should be converted into a peace park or dedicated to scientific research on extreme climatic conditions or adventure training for elite mountaineers.

Neal A Kemkar, in his research article entitled Environmental Peace Making: Ending Conflict Between India and Pakistan On the Siachen Glacier Through the Creation of a Transboundary Peace Park, presents a workable solution to resolve the dispute. He opines that the Siachen glacier should be converted into a science park -- an environmental zone, jointly managed by both India and Pakistan. The establishment of a peace park could serve as an enormous trust building mechanism, while also setting the stage to conserve biodiversity and provide large populations access to a natural resource. Defence analyst Gen (r) Talat Masood views that the proposal for converting Siachen into a peace park or a research centre on global warming can be jointly undertaken by the two countries with international assistance.

The Siachen glacier's conversion into peace park is not a novel idea. There already are 169 peace parks in the world, involving more than 100 countries -- the Waterton Glacier International Peace Park between Canada and the United States (established as early as in 1932); the Cordillera del Condor Peace Transborder Reserve between Ecuador and Peru; La Amistad National Park between Costa Rica and Nicaragua; and the Prespa Park between Albania, Greece and Macedonia to name a few. There is a need for resolving the Siachen dispute sooner rather than later, because it will be in the interest of both India and Pakistan. It is no wonder that the dispute is described as one of the "most futile and wasteful" in the world, both in material and human terms.

Pakistan is headed for an ecological disaster because of the eucalyptus. This hardy tree, a native of Australia, was first introduced to the subcontinent as far back as the 1890s. Twenty years later it was being planted here in limited numbers, for its oil (eucalyptol) was known to have decongestant and antiseptic properties. Then nothing was known of its hydrological properties and the effect of its leaf litter on the chemistry of the ground.

In the early 1960s Pakistani foresters discovered eucalyptus big time. Forest cover was sparse and ever falling, and for some 'smart' foresters eucalyptus was godsend: the sapling required no irrigation, it was not browsed upon by livestock and it was a fast-growing tree that easily attained a height of six metres or above in three to four years. Best of all, it tolerated most kinds of soils from sandy to mountainous to saline and waterlogged. Once planted the sapling simply grew: the survival rate of eucalyptus saplings, according to Raja Mohammed Zarif of the Pakistan Forest Institute, Peshawar, is now seen to be almost 100 per cent.

On the other hand, indigenous species that had shaded this land for millions of years required heavy maintenance. For one, saplings of, say, neem and pipal -- to name just two -- required to be watered in the first year. They are both great favourites of livestock and they grow nowhere near as fast as eucalyptus. Also, their survival rate is estimated to be less than 15 per cent. But that having been said, these trees, and scores of other indigenous species, have thrived on the subcontinent for millions of years.

Back in the 1970s, when intercity highways were widened for the first time, the indigenous trees that had always shaded them were felled. But kikar or pipal grows slow, so the foresters' solution was the fast-growing eucalyptus. The roads that were once tunnels of cool green were now lined by eucalyptus that grows straight up, and has a thin canopy and therefore little shade. But, as a sapling, this was the species they could stick in the ground and just forget about. So foolishly was this trend followed that when M-II (the motorway between Lahore and Islamabad) was completed in 1997, the only trees planted along its sides were those of eucalyptus.

Within years eucalyptus became the rage with forest department officials. This was their response to Pakistan's dismally low forest cover: plant a hundred saplings and in three years you have a swaying forest of mature trees -- no better result to show to superiors, and win accolades and promotions. Best of all, there was no work involved after transfer of the sapling from the plastic bag to the ground. From 1970 onwards, there was never a government building that was not endowed with its own forest of eucalyptus and never a nursery of forest department that did not flaunt thousands of saplings of this alien species. In comparison, all other species of trees paled into oblivion.

By 1985, unthinking forest department officers had planted eucalyptus in such diverse places as Makran, Thar and Cholistan, the hills of Bajaur, Swat, Dir and Indus Kohistan. It even replaced indigenous species in Punjab, Sindh and the NWFP's rich farmland. Today as one drives north from Khar (Bajaur Agency) to Dir or Swat, one cannot but be impressed by the fine stands of forest on the slopes. But closer inspection reveals that hillsides that should have been covered with cedar or pine are plagued with eucalyptus.

By the mid-1980s, it had been observed by foresters and farmers alike that the eucalyptus planted around waterlogged lands eventually dried them out. With water logging of good farmland being a major bane following the laying out of the canal system, this became another great reason for forest department 'short-cutters' to promote the imported eucalyptus ever more aggressively. So, from 1985 onwards, tree plantation campaigns were simply aggressive 'eucalyptus-promotion' drives and a time came when the word 'tree' came to be associated with 'eucalyptus'. On the other hand, the common people were even unaware of the fact that it is an alien species.

Even two decades ago, ecologists started questioning the effect of this tree on local ecology. Birds, other than an occasional crow, are known not to perch on or nest in it. It provides no food either to birds, beasts or humans. Its leaf litter does not decompose to create humus. Its timber has, so far, found only scant use in the country's chipboard industry and most users do not even consider it good fuel wood.

Research by the Nuclear Institute of Agricultural Biology (NIAB), Faisalabad, a subsidy of the Pakistan Atomic Energy Commission, casts interesting light on the properties of eucalyptus: "This tree lays out a wide mesh of roots to draw water as well as nutrients from good distances around itself. The water consumption of a young tree ranges from 53 to just under 70 litres. A mature tree (five years or more) will consume between 80-100 litres. This consumption is per 24 hour-cycle!" Small wonder, then, that eucalyptus, which was earlier so good at reclaiming waterlogged agricultural land, is now being dubbed as a water extractor.

Taking the average consumption at 80 litres, Pakistan -- blighted with no less than 100 million (as estimated by this scribe and agreed to by various experts) eucalyptus trees nationwide -- is losing eight billion litres of water every day. That is, 2,920,000,000,000 litres of good ground water is being uselessly squandered annually. That is just one side of the picture. Observation has also shown that agricultural fields bordered by eucalyptus suffer nearly 50 per cent fall in yield. This is a fact now well known to all those farmers around the country who were initially taken in by forest department's slogan of eucalyptus being a good cash crop -- a promise the tree has failed to live up to.

For the past two decades, Pakistani foresters have promoted nothing but eucalyptus. In their madness, they have remained unmindful of the number of wells and springs that have dried up on hillsides in Bajaur, Swat and Buner or the drastically falling water table in other parts of the country. While the government holds seminars to develop Groundwater Regulatory Frameworks to counter the fast-receding aquifers, both in rural and urban areas, the foresters continue to plague this country with the water-guzzling eucalyptus. For some bizarre reason, none of the many 'experts' gracing these periodic conferences has ever considered the effect of the inordinately high number of eucalyptus trees in the country.

A senior retired forest department official conceded that eucalyptus was favoured because of its 100 percent success rate -- plant a sapling and there is no way it will not mature. Against that, indigenous but useful trees had to be cared for. Eucalyptus was, therefore, preferred because foresters wanted to show 'results'. Not equipped to carry out ecological studies and concerned only with timber, provincial forest departments were incapable of recognising the damage inflicted upon bird life by the systematic eradication of our indigenous trees. Nor too were the foresters willing to learn from botanists who knew better -- forest department officials shy from consultations with botanists or even with the NIAB.

Eucalyptus was eventually banned in the country in the mid-1990s. In 2005, it was banned for a second time in Punjab. Even after the second banning, senior forest officers are aggressively advocating eucalyptus. So far as these ignorant people are concerned, the tree has absolutely no bearing on the falling water table or the drying springs and wells. Birds whose niche is being squeezed forever and ever are of no consequence to these 'experts', who have no understanding of ecology to say the least.

As the aquifer dries up, tube-wells are being dug deeper and deeper. It is true that illogical water usage has much to do with this depletion, but our eucalyptus plantations play a significant role in it as well. When (not if) the water wars begin, Pakistan will enter them with a handicap that we will have only our foresters to thank for. But long before we die of thirst, because these 'experts' can only think in terms of timber, our spirits will have been devastated because there will be no bird song. Gone will the warble of the bulbul, the mellifluous whistle of the golden oriole, the raucous call of the hornbill and the sad little kuk-kuk-kuk of the coppersmith. Then the thirst will follow!

The education sector worldwide owes a lot to the contributions of John Dewey (born October 20, 1859; died 1952), as his ideas and methods have left valuable and enduring imprints on it. Historically, between the two World Wars -- when the previously underdeveloped countries were obliged to catch up quickly with the most modern educational methods, as in China, Japan, Latin America, Soviet Union and Turkey -- re-shapers of the educational system sought guidance in Dewey's innovations.

Dewey's work marks the consummation of educational trends below the university level, which were initiated by pioneer pedagogues and animated by the impulses of the bourgeois democratic revolution. This is clear in his views on child education that are based on the ideas pioneered by Froebel, Pestalozi and Rousseau in Western Europe and by Kindred reformers in the United States.

The international democratic movement forced consideration of the needs and claims of one section of the oppressed after another. Out of the general cause of "rights of the people", there sprouted specific demands voicing the grievances of peasants, wage workers, the religiously persecuted, slaves, women, paupers, senior citizens, the disabled, prisoners, the insane, the racially oppressed, etc.

Unfortunately, the democratic movement has failed to affect Pakistan in any way and democratic norms are still to a great extent non-existent in the country -- as such, children are usually not included among the oppressed though they comprise one of the weakest, most-dependent and defenceless sections of the population. Each generation of children is not helped but hindered and hurt by authoritarian elders, who exercise direct control over them and their fates.

Our society denies satisfaction to the physical, educational and cultural needs of the young, and their rights are either slighted or ignored. The youth suffers from the inadequacies of their social inheritance and the evils of their surroundings. Growing children are normally unaware of the social causes of their misfortunes and miseries, so they direct all their resentments towards -- as well as focus all their affections on -- the members of their immediate circle only, which in turn provides plenty of pathetic tales and tragic descriptions of family conflicts at all age levels. Children themselves cannot voice their grievances or conduct struggle for improvements in their life conditions and mode of education. They need spokespeople among adults who are sensitive to their miseries as well as committed to remedy them.

In Pakistan every government, asserting changes in the socio-political system, has promised the reformation of the educational system. This has also been fermented by the present government, especially in Punjab. Despite the entire official hype of Parah Likha Punjab, created mainly through advertisements in the media, the realisation of the idea of free, comprehensive and secular education still remains a distant dream.

It appears that the educational reformers in our country have never tried to tackle the two distinct aspects of children's problems. The first concerns the claims of childhood as a specific and independent stage in human growth. This perennial problem arises from the efforts of adults to subject growing children to ends foreign to their needs, and to press them into moulds shaped not by the requirements of the maturing personality but by the external interests of the ruling order. The second problem involves efforts to reshape the obsolete system of schooling to make it fit to the changes in social life. On this account too, the country's educational setup has failed miserably.

Dewey's theories blend attention to children as individuals having rights and claims of their own with recognition of the gulf between an outdated and class-distorted educational setup inherited from the past, and the urgent requirements of the new era. "The school must be made into a social centre capable of participating in the daily life of the community, and make up in part to the child for the decay of dogmatic and fixed methods of social discipline, and for the loss of reverence and the influence of authority," he argues.

Dewey opines that education should give every child the chance to grow up spontaneously, harmoniously and all-sidedly: "Instead of trying to split schools into two kinds -- one of a trade type for the children whom it is assumed are to be employees, and one of a liberal type for the children of the well-to-do -- it will aim at such a reorganisation of existing schools as will give all pupils a genuine respect for useful work, an ability to render service and a contempt for social parasites whether they are called tramps or leaders of society." Such a definition does not please those who look upon themselves as preordained to the command posts of the social system.

Dewey rejects the commercial-minded approach to education as is in vogue nowadays in our country. He opposes slotting children prematurely into the grooves of capitalist manufacturer. He declares that the business of education is more than education for the sake of business: "Children must not be treated as miniature adults or merely as means for ministering to adult needs, now or later. They have their own rights. Childhood is a period of consummation and of enjoyment of life on its terms, as it is a prelude to later life."

The authoritarian teacher, the cut-and-dried curriculum, the uniform procession from one grade to the next, and the traditional fixed seats and desks laid out in rows within the isolated and self-contained classroom are all impediments to enlightened education. Whenever the occasion warrants, children should be permitted to go outdoors and enter the everyday life of their community, instead of being shut up in a classroom "where each pupil sits at a screwed down desk and studies the same part of some lesson from the same textbook at the same time." Children can realise their capacities freely in an unobstructed environment only.

Dewey aims to integrate the school with the society, and the processes of learning with the actual problems of life, by a thoroughgoing application of the principles and practices of democracy: "The school system should be open to all on a completely free and equal basis without any restrictions or segregation on account of colour, race, creed, national origin, sex or social status." This type of education would have the most beneficial social consequences. It would tend to erase unjust distinctions and prejudices, and authoritarian control in any form. It would produce alert, balanced, critical-minded individuals who would continue to grow in intellectual and moral stature after graduation. Though Dewey's ideas have inspired many modifications in traditional curriculum, instruction techniques and school construction patterns, unfortunately, they have not been able to change the basic nature of Pakistan's education system.

Hailing from a well known political family of Sindh, Shazia Marri's entry into politics does not come as a surprise to many. However, what most people are not aware of is Shazia's struggle to prove herself as an individual, who does not like be referred to as the daughter of Atta Mohammad Marri or the granddaughter of Ali Mohammad Marri. Having already spent five years in active politics, Shazia has at least partially succeeded in her struggle -- she has managed to impress even her male counterparts with her brains.

A member of the Sindh Assembly, elected on one of the reserved seats for women, Shazia is affiliated with the Pakistan People's Party (PPP). Though only in her early 30s, she comes out as a strong and sensible woman -- highly sophisticated and professional. It goes to her credit that she has been able to prove her mettle as a woman politician, having achieved a lot in a short span of time.

Shazia has been struggling for the women's rights since the age of 16, when she applied for divorce from her first husband to whom she was married at the tender age of 14. In order to get divorce, she also had to give up the custody of her son. "My first husband, who also happened to be my cousin, was much older than me and we found it very difficult to get along. As he also used to physically abuse me, I decided to part ways with him," Shazia recalls. Though the concept of divorce was alien to the Marri family to which Shazia belongs, she decided to take the bold initiative instead of resigning to fate like most women.

Shazia terms those years an "ugly chapter" of her life, which she does not even want to recall anymore. She, however, believes it was the responsibilities and sufferings of those days that helped her emerge as a fighter and become the mature person she is today. "Unlike most women politicians when I say I can understand how victims of domestic violence feel, I can actually relate to their sufferings," the dedicated young politician says. Aptly, one of her biggest achievements since becoming a member of the Sindh Assembly has been the introduction of the Anti-Domestic Violence Bill in May 2004.

Highly inspired by her father Atta Mohammad Marri, whose traits she appears to have inherited, Shazia feels the lessons he taught to her during his lifetime helped mould her personality for the better. "Since my grandfather was a politician too, who used to travel a lot, my father was exposed to the outside world and was well aware of what was happening around him." Her father later joined the Pakistan Muslim League (PML). "As a politician, my party affiliation is different from that of my father. Nevertheless, I am a committed politician like him. I am a loyal member of the PPP just like he was of the PML."

Shazia's mother, Parveen Marri, was a politician too, and was elected on one of the reserved seats for women in the Sindh Assembly in the 1980s. "I never aimed at becoming a politician nor was politics ever forced upon me or my siblings. I guess it came to us naturally, as we hail from a political family," believes Shazia, who is the eldest of her five siblings.

Shazia got her early education from City School, Karachi. History was her favourite subject during school years. She was also a good debator and the captain of her school's badminton team. The inherent politician in her was first witnessed when she was nominated to contest the election for the school's head girl. "I remember I was quite active during my school years. I assume it was because of my leadership qualities that I was pushed to contest the election for the school's head girl." The first time around, she lost by a small margin of five votes. Obviously Shazia was quite disappointed, but her father encouraged her to remain adamant -- and she won with a thumping majority the next year. "In fact, the school principal was so impressed by my performance that she extended my tenure as the head girl for another year," she recalls.

This was Shazia's last year of freedom as a child, because soon after she was married to her cousin -- a Sindhi tradition she had to follow. Shazia continued her education as a private student even after marriage -- resisting her husband and in-laws, who tried to discourage her from doing so. This lack of support from her husband, coupled with physical abuse, made her somewhat bitter. At one point, Shazia says, "I was labelled as a feminist because of my statements against men. Immature men are an instant turn off. Even today people believe I am anti-men, which is not the case. I somehow feel there are just not enough sensible men around."

Unfortunately, her second marriage with a man of her choice also ended on a sad note. "I felt I was too mature for my second husband," says Shazia, adding that she tried her best to keep her second marriage intact. She has a nine-year-old daughter, Anushe, from this marriage. Shazia's life revolves around Anushe now, and the mother and daughter are always there for each other. "Anushe might end up becoming a politician too, as I try my best to educate her about the realities of life."

Politics came to Shazia because of the hardships she had to face on account of being a woman -- she thought this could be one way of becoming the voice of many women who suffer in silence and long for justice. Shazia became an active member of the PPP in 2002. Prior to this, she was teaching at a school besides occasionally contributing to the party's activities. Shazia hails from the Sanghar district. "Since the PPP lost in Sanghar in the last general elections, I am the party's sole representative from the district in the Sindh Assembly."

On being questioned about how accepting are her counterparts -- both men and women -- in the Sindh Assembly, Shazia says: "A lot of people question me about how my presence as a women legislator in the assembly has improved the status of women in the country over the past five years. This compels me to counter question them: what have the men legislators done for the women though they have been here for decades?" She disagrees with the assumption that women legislators should work on women's issues only. "Why is water not a women's issue? Why is electricity or poverty not a women's issue?" she questions.

Shazia feels a woman's opinion on national issues is just as important as that of a man. "Women have been in politics since the inception of Pakistan. It's just that one needs to acknowledge their existence." Shazia is proud to be an empowered woman, who has the liberty to voice her opinion in the provincial assembly and who has won support for her convincing arguments. "Before I challenge anyone's argument, I make sure that I have done my research on the subject. It is essential to do your homework before challenging anyone," she stresses.

A liberated woman does not feel chained by a man's decisions and tries to bring about the little change she can in the lives of people, Shazia says. Aptly, the first bill she moved in the assembly was against domestic violence. It was passed by the assembly without any opposition in a record time. Later, she also introduced more bills on social issues. Using her privilege as a provincial legislator, Shazia also got constructed a ramp for the physically disabled in the Sindh Assembly -- an achievement she says she will always be proud of. She also struggled for a two per cent quota for the physically disabled in the CSS exams. "I believe it's the brains that count. In government services, one can also be assigned a desk job. It is unfair to rule out the physically disabled and underestimate their capabilities," she argues. Shazia also raised an argument over the use of the word 'chairman' in a public document and insisted that the gender-neutral term 'chairperson' be used instead.

Unlike most women legislators, Shazia does not complain about discrimination by her male colleagues. Instead, she complains about the unfriendly attitude of some of her female colleagues in the assembly. "I have come to believe that as all women are not good, similarly all men are not bad." She, in fact, feels that men are more accommodating as compared with women. "My male colleagues listen to my legislative concerns so much so that at times they also come up to me for suggestions. This is an achievement for me."

When asked what the major hindrance is in the way of addressing the women's issues effectively, she says it is the absence of lobbies. "It is difficult to create pressure for the implementation of laws due to the absence of lobbies, but for that you need a stable political structure and parliament, which we, unfortunately, don't have." Strongly objecting to the condition of being a graduate for contesting the elections, she says: "This condition has further maligned politics, as most of the population is uneducated." This condition, she believes, is also the biggest hurdle in the way of women's participation in politics.

If nothing else, Benazir's return has demonstrated the PPP's ability to mobilise the masses

By Aasim Sajjad Akhtar

Now that Benazir Bhutto is finally home, the endless pontificating about her character, savvy (or lack thereof) and 'corruption' can finally be put to rest. Objectively speaking, one cannot help wonder why Benazir gets so much attention from intellectuals, generals and fellow politicians alike. In any case, rather than hear everyone else talk about Benazir, the Pakistani people will now be able to hear it straight from the horse's mouth.

If nothing else, the relatively raucous reception given to the twice former prime minister by tens of thousands of people on the streets of Karachi points to the fact that the Pakistan People's Party (PPP) and its chairperson remain a major political force in the country. It should also be a signal to other political entities -- which wax lyrical about street power -- that actions speak louder than words.

It is true that the regime did not impede the PPP's mobilisation to greet Benazir in any major way. It is also true that the regime's double standards are clear for all to see, given that it went out of the way to impede the Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N) in its attempts to rally supporters to receive Nawaz Sharif on his much-touted homecoming. Having said this, it is also true that the PPP clearly has a mobilisational capacity -- despite having been weakened considerably over the past decade -- that the PML-N cannot match.

Ostensibly this is because the PPP has always remained a party with a distinctly populist tinge, a party that has been at least nominally more inclined to shifting the balance of power in Pakistan away from the establishment and towards the people. Many analysts have been arguing that this legacy has been effectively buried in the last few months with the so-called backroom dealings between the party and the military government. Regardless of the party's popular image, it is naive to think about the PPP as standing outside the pale of power politics -- therefore, the fact that it would be interested in securing a share of power within the existing system should not come as a shock or be considered as a morally reprehensible thing to do.

Having said this, it is also true that the people of Pakistan do not stand to benefit in any significant way from the PPP's power sharing within such a system. Given the manner in which many people's hopes for a slightly better future were raised by the events of the past few months, it is not surprising that there is disappointment at what is perceived as an outcome that maintains the status quo and results only in a change 'at the top'.

Only hindsight will afford us the opportunity to evaluate exactly what has or has not been lost due to the negotiations over the past few months. However, what the incessant chatter about Benazir's 'sellout' does flag is that there is a real danger that what limited progress has been made in recent times will be followed by a reversal of a greater magnitude -- in other words, one step forward followed by two steps backwards. One is not referring to the 'deal' here as much as the fact that politicians seem to be back on the chopping block in lieu of the generals, who remain the bane of Pakistani politics.

At the time of partition, the civil-military combine that assumed power -- carrying on from the model which was moulded by the colonial state -- carved a niche for itself by maligning politicians as inept, corrupt and uninterested in the people. The military gradually displaced the civil bureaucracy as the dominant force in the country's politics and the policy of maligning politicians was pursued with an even greater vigour. Retired military men have documented the manner in which the institution deliberately projected itself as incorruptible and the guardian of the state, in direct contrast to the deliberately cultivated image of politicians.

Brigadier A R Siddiqui -- who was director general of the Inter-Services Public Relations (ISPR) during Ayub Khan's rule -- has written a book entitled The Military in Pakistan: Image and Reality underlining how pervasive this opinion-manipulation practice has been. In the media, academia and popular discourse, this notion has been reinforced through any and all means. It has ensured that military takeovers in Pakistan are considered natural, even necessary, whereas anywhere else in the world even the most corrupt of politicians do not provide a ready-made mandate for military rule. It is a popular refrain that Pakistan has only one functioning institution, the military, while all other institutions are either disbanded or cowered into submission to the men in uniform.

And so, after more than five decades of this recurring state of affairs, it has been a breath of fresh air to see the myth of military purity being debunked by the people of Pakistan themselves. The media and mainstream political parties have only been reflecting the growing belief among ordinary people that the military is no longer a sacred cow, and in fact is anything but. Most crucially, it is in Punjab that the military's image has taken a beating, which is where it has to if anything is going to change. In any case, Sindh and Balochistan -- at least -- have never acceded to this hype, always being on the receiving end of the military's whims.

Thus, what is most disturbing about the current conjuncture is not that the PPP would try and secure a share in power -- as all of our mainstream political parties are in the business of doing -- but that the focus of the polemic in the country is once again being directed at politicians, who, in the overall scheme of things, remain relatively powerless vis-a-vis the General Headquarters (GHQ). This is not to suggest that mainstream politicians in Pakistan are angels or that they should not be subject to public scrutiny, but that if anything is to be gained from the past few months the military's role must continue to be the main object of censure.

If this does not happen, then one can rest assured that we will revert to the familiar pattern of the 1988-1999 interregnum. In other words, successive 'elected' governments will be replaced under the guise that they are corrupt and anti-people, and eventually the military will appear on the scene as a saviour to rescue the people from the clutches of the inept politicians. This is what the military wants in no uncertain terms -- the institution is clearly perturbed by the unprecedented amount of criticism it has been subject to in recent times and would like nothing more than to recede into the dark background, still pulling the strings, while politicians get the flak for policies that they have not even conceived themselves.

Undoubtedly, there is a need for bringing about comprehensive changes in the country's power structure. For this, new political formations will need to come to the fore to challenge the existing system. The PPP -- in its current incarnation -- should not be seen as the harbinger of revolution. Benazir or Nawaz Sharif, for that matter, do not have to be our favourite politicians, but they should not once again become the whipping boys / girls of public discourse. In short, while a new political alternative is being devised, it is imperative that those amongst us who are otherwise totally committed to democracy do not inadvertently damage its future prospects by making politicians the focus of our ire. Ultimately it is the generals who run the show that are deserving of our criticism; let us not forget this basic fact!