assistance Challenges for
Bilawal Yeh Woh tribute Extreme defence
assistance In the aftermath of the
Mohmand incident resulting in the deaths of 24 Pakistani soldiers and
officers, the Obama administration and lawmakers in Washington have once
again invoked economic and military assistance as a tool to force Pakistan
into compliance, and also to forget the Salala attack as an accident. The latest freeze of $700
million military aid for Pakistan notwithstanding, let us look at the current
mood in Islamabad and Rawalpindi. Discussions with senior civilian and
military officials can be summed up the following way: “We do not want the
military assistance. Nor are we interested in the much touted economic aid
under the Kerry Lugar Berman Law (KLBL) 2009. The US Senate may freeze
whatever assistance the government intended for Pakistan but our message is
clear; the Americans and other Nato countries
have had a free ride in the last decade or so. The country has got plenty of
uncalled for flak in the world, and endured far more damages than the
assistance it has received. So better live without that assistance.” Pretty alarming posturing,
it seems, because the Nato supplies via Pakistan remain frozen, with no
prospect of resumption in the next two weeks. The reaction flows from a
bruised ego. Also because, the US has declined to reimburse some $3.2 billion
that it owes Pakistan under the Coalition Support Fund (CSF). The refusal
came through during the recently concluded Pakistan-IMF talks in Dubai, when
the Fund mission reportedly consulted the US authorities in Washington (USA
has the largest voting share on the IMF Board) to check out whether Islamabad
should expect some payments in reimbursements. The US authorities reportedly
told the IMF that Pakistan may get maximum $400 million during the current
fiscal year. As of now, this has upset
Pakistani team’s expectation of getting over $1billion worth of CSF
reimbursements. But let us take a look at the figures the US administration
flags all over when talking of “20 billion dollars in ten years” to
Pakistan. Until early last year, the CSF reimbursements for the period until
2009 amounted to slightly less than $9 billion. (It is technically
reimbursement and not security assistance). Ministry of Finance
officials say that Pakistan has received $742 million in December 2010 for
the CSF reimbursements, and up to $375 million under the Kerry Lugar Berman
Law (KLBL) during 2011. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, during her
October visit to Islamabad, spoke of $2 billion figure for 2010-2011 under
the KLBL. Meanwhile, the US administration counts $550 million that the
American government made available for the recovery and rehabilitation of the
2010 flood-affected areas also to the aid under the KLBL. Back in July, the US had
withheld $800 million in aid (including $300 million for training programmes
under the US trainers) after Pakistan ordered 125 American military
instructors to leave the country against the backdrop of the raid on Osama
bin Laden compound. Until then, according to the US official figures,
security-related funding, including the Coalition Support Funds (CSF),
amounted to about $14.14 billion until 2010, and this included the
operational cost of the 140,000 Pakistani troops deployed along the
2560-kilometer border with Afghanistan and the training-capacity building
programmes for the paramilitary force called the Frontier Corps. These figures also
underscored the sharp contrast in the spending patterns in ten years; almost
two-thirds of the American aid going into security-related heads, while the
social sector and economic infrastructure received the rest one-third. As for the hardware, the US
gave Pakistan (under Foreign Military Funding) a) 20 used cobra
helicopters out of its surplus (extra defense articles) plus 10 cracked ones
for cannibalization. b) Some 16 F-16s (used). c) 16 MI 17 choppers
(used). d) About two dozen 412
choppers(new). e) Seven C 130s (used). f) Seven P3 Orions (used). g) About 5000 TOW
air-to-ground anti-tank missiles. h) Phalanx guns for Naval
Air Defense. i) Several thousand Ak 47
Rifles. In addition to that, the US
sold Pakistan — against cash and credit — 18 new F-16 aircrafts. The
assistance for counter-insurgency, counter-narcotics, Frontier Corps
capacity-building was part of security-related assistance. The army claims that (ISPR
Press Release, June 10, 2011) the US security related assistance provided in
cash (coalition support funds – CSF) as well as in kind has been about
$12.522 billion. This assistance included $8.647 billion on account of CSF
and $3.875 billion on account of security assistance in kind (weapons,
equipments, expenditure of training by US trainers, services, visits, pay of
trainers etc for armed forces of Pakistan, civil armed forces and even
anti-narcotics force). Out of the total $12.522
billion, Pakistan Army received $1.455 billion under the CSF head and $1.023
billion on account of security assistance in kind, bringing the total amount
received by the Army to $2.478 billion out of $12.522 billion pledged since
early 2002, the statement said. Non-reconcilable amounts Also, on average, officials
say, the US reimbursed only up to 65 per cent of the total bills under the
CSF in the last ten years. That is why an amount of $2.5 billion under the
CSF claims remains contested as ‘non-reconciled’ amount. The last CSF
bill that Pakistan submitted with Washington in May 2011 had amounted to $2.3
billion, which has now shot over $3 billion for the simple fact that Pakistan
spends at least 100 million every month on the deployment of some 150,000
troops on the western borders. This situation confronts
Pakistan with two worries; shortfall in expected foreign exchange, and
secondly, bad name “for not doing enough despite getting billions of
dollars from the United States.” This means (according to
The News, Dec 19th) that the foreign currency reserves could fall to $12
billion from the current $16 billion mark if the $800 million installment
from Etisalat for the PTCL privatisation, the auction of the 3G mobile
license (expected in March), resumption of programme loans from the World
Bank and Asian Development Bank to the tune of $1billion and $500 million
from the Euro Bond do not materialise. Under the current circumstances, the
fate of over $3 billion accumulated under the Coalition Support Fund (CSF)
also hangs in the balance — at least for the next few months. Viewed against this
backdrop, one major question looms large; how much impact does the entire US
military and civilian aid add to Pakistan’s GDP? If a study by the Woodrow
Wilson Centre, carried out by its former vice-president Shahid Javed Burki,
were any indicator, Pakistan can survive (without cash assistance from the
United States). “If the US civilian
assistance is completely withdrawn, it will only have an impact of 0.14 per
cent on Pakistan’s GDP growth.” (The News, Karachi, April 29, 2011) Shahid Javed Burki, a
former finance minister, reckons that around 40 per cent of that amount goes
to the American consultants and Pakistan only receives approximately 60 per
cent of the pledged aid. (In his book Cables from Kabul, former British
ambassador to Kabul Sherard Cowper-Coles also speaks of the same percentages,
saying “a good 40 per cent of the US money goes back to the United States
in service charges and consultant fees). Pakistani military
officials seem to stand firm on their rejection of the American assistance
under the current circumstances. The GHQ also insists the CSF reimbursements
must not be touted as “assistance”, and hope they can survive without the
assistance — mostly used military hardware and some hard cash. But largely, the US money
and hardware is not as important as Washington’s pleasure and its weightage
in the international finance institutions and finance markets. That is where
the US displeasure could pinch and aggravate Pakistan’s internal economic
crisis. The country needs goodwill and regardless of the merits or otherwise
of the American “aid and assistance”, the absence of Washington’s
goodwill at international forum does matter a lot for the country. And this
is what all power-wielders have to keep in mind in the larger and longer
interest of the country and its teeming millions. (Imtiaz Gul is the
Executive Director of the independent Centre for Research and Security
Studies, and a Fellow of International House of Japan/Japan Foundation,
Tokyo.)
Challenges
for Bilawal Pity the young man, all the
pelf and privilege notwithstanding. Other well-heeled, recently returned
graduates from universities abroad are probably still settling back home, and
testing the waters of family-owned businesses. Bilawal Bhutto-Zardari, on the
other hand, is not only knee-deep in his family business — politics —
he’s the poster boy in the campaign to resurrect the Pakistan People’s
Party and turn it once again into the election-winning entity that it once
was. Even though at 23 years of age, he’s two years shy of being eligible
to stand for election himself. Bilawal’s transition to a
high-profile political role was evident during President Zardari’s recent
sojourn in Dubai when he chaired party meetings with Prime Minister Gilani,
and met with the PPP’s coalition partners. Reportedly, Bilawal himself
has been keen to enter the political arena, but if he is undaunted by the
task ahead of him, it is evidence of his youth and inexperience, both of
which are among the many challenges that lie ahead of him. A comparison that springs
to mind is Rahul Gandhi — another young man from a prominent political
family who lost a parent to a terrorist attack. Rahul was nearly in his
mid-30s before he stood for election from his family constituency of Amethi
and it was another three years before he took on a role in the running of the
Congress party. Those were years in which his political skills were honed and
polished. Bilawal, on the other hand,
was appointed chairman of the PPP immediately after his mother’s death when
he was just 19-year-old and has been thrust into the limelight well before he
has had the chance to acquire political maturity. The sole reason behind his
appointment as party chief was to perpetuate the cult of Bhutto, which is a
reflection of the immaturity of the political system in this country. However, the cult of Bhutto
may ironically have met its nemesis in the person of what one might politely
describe as its most famous in-law. For President Zardari’s legacy is
perhaps the biggest challenge of all to Bilawal’s political aspirations.
The misgovernance displayed time and again by the PPP government and the
allegations of corruption that have stuck to Zardari closer than a flea to a
dog’s collar have deeply compromised the national support that the party
once enjoyed. However, it is still
possible that the ultra-constitutional and PPP-specific steps that have
consistently been taken in the past four years to bring the government to its
knees will help the party cast itself in the role of a victim. Bilawal, with
his thus far unsullied image and undeniably emotive role as Benazir’s son,
may be able to work that angle successfully. Outside Sindh, in the rest
of the country, the disenchantment with the PPP has gone beyond where an
appeal to the emotions is even a viable tactic, and there are other
heavyweights in the arena — the PML-N, the PML-Q, the ANP, the JI and the
PTI, to name but a few. In Sindh there are no real alternatives to the PPP;
the few nationalist parties in the fray may be able to make some inroads,
particularly on the issue of the continuing misery of the flood victims, but
they are unlikely to change the political complexion of the province. There are thus multiple
challenges that lie before Bilawal. But while his youth is a handicap, it may
also hold the key to his salvation. For thanks in part to the Twitter
generation that drove the Arab Spring and, in the local context, to Imran
Khan’s reenergising that segment of the population as a potential votebank,
youth is the buzzword in today’s politics. Nawaz Sharif’s daughter,
Maryam, and his nephew, Hamza, have also been drafted in to staunch the flow
of young people towards the Pakistan Tehreek-i-Insaaf. This demographic is
where Bilawal too should focus his energies, both in terms of tailoring his
message and also through reinvigorating his party’s youth wing. First and foremost though,
Bilawal needs to become part of the political process. To that end, the best
thing would be for the People’s Party to sit in the opposition for a few
years while the grandson of its founder, Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, builds it up.
But like all expedient politicians, the Bhuttos too cannot resist the
temptation to come into power. The sense of entitlement
that is part and parcel of the ruling elite will only take Bilawal so far in
the present circumstances. When the time comes, winning a seat from Lyari or
any of the PPP strongholds in interior Sindh should be a walk in the park,
but whether he is destined to be a national leader or merely a provincial one
is dependent on the acquisition of hardcore political skills that are
necessary to swim in the sea of sharks that is Pakistan’s political
landscape. Furthermore, to truly
revive his party across the country, he needs to make it attractive once
again to the disadvantaged classes from where it drew its original support.
And for this purpose, Bilawal could do nothing better than to take it closer
to its roots as far as practical. But, whether he will be able to carve out a
place for himself at a table where Zardari is seated at the other end is
another story.
Yeh
Woh Pakistan is not a failed
state … as yet. But it’s sure to be one if it continues to import from
China. Of course we could achieve
failure on our own but Chinese goods help. What made our railways run out of
steam? Chinese locomotives of course. What has made PAF a cheap and cheerful
lot that can’t even shoot down toy planes carrying deadly missiles? Chinese
fighter jets that are to be the mainstay for years to come. Why is suicide
becoming so fashionable among Indian farmers and switching to petty crime
among their Pakistani counterparts? Chinese farm produce, what else. The
ethnic Kashmiris who reconciled their original culture with that of their
adopted Pak land by eating raajma (kidney beans) grown in Punjab, twice a
week, are deprived of their identity with the markets stocked up on the beans
imported from China. Even the good old lime, coriander, mint … all is now
coming from a field on the other side of the mountains. Don’t get me wrong, China
is a great country and its people are ingenuous and hard working. They mass
produce everything other than babies, as opposed to us Pakistanis who produce
nothing but. I’ll go to the extent of terming it the US of Asia which will
eventually take over the US of America. And I’ve always believed the state
propaganda about the two countries’ friendship being higher than Himalayas
and deeper than Arabian Sea. I’ve been among the schoolchildren who greeted
Chinese leaders on their visits to Pakistan with the slogan of ‘Pak Chin
yoi, wong toye’ (I am quoting from a patriotic but unreliable memory here
and wouldn’t want to be responsible for a translation or spelling error.
All I know is it meant: Pak China friendship zindabad or something to that
effect). But when it comes to food, we can only enjoy Chinese produce if we
also import taste buds from our friendly neighbourhood exporter, especially
if at some point in future we’ll be required to buy Chinese Sindhri variety
for our riverside mango party. The great country has
mastered the art of making everything affordable for the middle classes the
world over, which should be lauded as a philanthropic initiative. The Chinese
manufacturers and traders insist on calling it business though. And
Pakistanis buy the stuff with the same fatalistic enthusiasm with which they
invest in lottery — if it works out, great, if not, the money was going to
be wasted on something else anyways. We are suckers by choice, and China
appreciates that. A roadside vendor in
Faizabad is selling prescription glasses for Rs40, with frame and all. What
kind of business is that? Someone made the lenses in the basement of their
house in an unpronounceable town in south western China, someone else made
the frame, a trader whose mere name will make a Pakistani maiden blush spent
money on transporting the finished product across the border, another trader
on this side received the shipment and distributed it to footpath vendors
across the country, each one of them earned some profit, and the final sale
price in Islamabad is still less than half a dollar? If this is not a
conspiracy, I wonder what is. Though I can’t see what the objective of this
conspiracy is. But then again I may be wearing prescription glasses made in
China. We have air conditioners
that work fine when they are not required and die suddenly when needed. Our
transistor radios fail to catch the frequency of the FM station that is
beaming from the next street. The mobile phones stop being mobile or phones
within six months of purchase. The Gucci sunglasses bought for Rs100 are
facilitating the ultra violet rays sneaking into our irises … because they
are all made in China. But the last nail in our state coffin is going to be
the cigarette lighters. This commodity, for which
we dumped our match boxes and are now totally dependent on China, is turning
us into a nation of losers. The shopkeeper selling the lighter tries it in
front of you and it works. You hold it in your own hand and try it again, it
works. You pay for it, walk out the shop and take out a cigarette to smoke,
the lighter stops working. Or in the middle of the night the lighter dies on
you still half full with gasoline. And everyone knows no country can avoid
being a failed state if its population can’t light up when they want to. masudalam@yahoo.com
tribute When Christopher Hitchens
was diagnosed with a malignant form of esophageal cancer in 2010, he reacted
to the diagnosis in a characteristically combative style by quickening the
pace of his engagement with his inhabited world. Until weeks before his
death, he continued with his deadlines in business as usual, without evincing
any hint of pity. And in this, he did not let anyone else become interpreter
of his maladies. He himself wrote eloquently about his disease and its fatal
outcome. Indeed the last column he
contributed to Vanity Fair dealt with the issue of how he was coping with the
illness, again in his characteristic combative and lively, imaginative style.
Like his last days, he lived his large-sized life with zest, confabulating
with his friends and foes, and fulminating against the powerful (his essays
and books punctured the myths surrounding hallowed figures such as Henry
Kissinger, Bill Clinton and Mother Teresa). I was privileged to be a
witness to his intellectual pugilism on full display after the US invasion of
Iraq when Hitchens came to speak at the socialist bookshop in London. With
cameras in attendance, he laid out his oratorical skills by tearing into his
erstwhile former comrades in left-politics with a mix of sharp wit and deep
historical knowledge. This was vintage Hitchens’ performance which left
everyone impressed; it was a brilliant speech studded with a wealth of
references irrespective of whether all those assembled agreed with him or
not. Even his hatred for his former comrades and love for new found friends
was educative in its scholarly sweep. Perhaps this is where his erudition as
a scholar-activist lay. Born into a family of
modest means in 1949, Christopher Hitchens’ parents sent him to a private
school which led to his entry into Oxford from where he graduated. At Oxford,
he fell in with fellow left-leaning students — an experience which shaped
him intellectually and politically. Politically, he became internationalist
in his sympathies and interests and intellectually he grew dissident (contrarian
he preferred to be described) after the fashion of Trotsky. Soon after his graduation,
he began his journalistic career when he joined the leading British left-wing
weekly New Statesman in the late 1970s. Here he formed lasting friendship
with a trio of emerging writers: Julian Barnes, Ian McEwen and Martin Amis.
During those years, he travelled widely and wrote on almost everything that
caught his fancy with style, wit and insight. In fact his total political
engagement with left-wing causes and linguistic lust for producing a stylish
copy blended so harmoniously in him that he came to be dubbed by some as the
pamphleteer of Tom Paine’s stature. (Hitchens’ love for Karl Marx’s
best pamphlet ‘18th Burmaire of Louis Bonaparte’ was well-known.) Yet his
interests ranged far beyond Marxism. He widely read literature
and his fascination for George Orwell grew with the passage of time. As he
moved away from his leftist past, he came to admire George Orwell more and
more. This was manifest in his book ‘Why Orwell matters’ which came out
in 2002. Like his heroes, he did not confine himself to writing. In true
fashion typical of Tom Paine, he engaged ferociously in heated and sustained
public conversation and disputation on issues of the day. Here, too, he left
his mark. Not surprisingly he came to be ranked as one of the best debating
wit around, always in demand on media outlets. Yet he felt Britain too
confining for his wide ranging interests and expanded mental canvass. Seizing on a half chancing
of working for the liberal US weekly Nation, he left for the US in 1981. For
the next two decades he wrote a ‘Minority Report Column’ for the magazine
before falling out with the Nation’s collective opposition to the US
invasion of Iraq. This marked a turning point in Hitchens’ intellectual
odyssey which saw him staging a dramatic U-turn from his anti-Vietnam
left-wings views to neo-con right wing views telescoped in his passionate
advocacy for the US invasion of Iraq. While his more sympathetic
friends put it down to his fear of Islamofascim, his erstwhile comrades from
his left days saw him as a renegade. The result was ferocious verbal and
written spats between Hitchens and stars of the Anglo-American left such as
Tariq Ali, George Galloway, Noam Chomsky, Edward Said and Alexander Cockburn.
In particular, heart-aching was his break up with Edward Said, with whom he
had worked closely over the year in raising the plight and powerlessness of
the Palestinians. More significantly, Hitchens’ shift to pro-war stance
also put him at odds with his brother Peter Hitchens, a prominent journalist
and commentator. By all accounts, Hitchens
flowered intellectually in the US. As his name and fame as a public
intellectual of great courage and learning spread, he was enlisted by
influential publications such as the Vanity Fair and the Atlantic monthly as
their star writer. During this time he also established his toehold in the
academia as the visiting professor at New York School for Social Research. In all, Hitchens authored
eleven books, with five more as a co-author, apart from a number of other
books showcasing his collected essays. In 2010, he published his memoir
‘Hitch-22’ which attracted wide-spread critical notice and bulged up his
family’s pocket for the first time in all the years of his writing,
fighting and speaking life. In short, the life he wrote
is worthy of celebration and emulation all over the world where conviction
politics and the art of public reasoning are being systematically snuffed out
of the public sphere. As for his decision to adopt journalism as a
profession, the following words from his memoir should be heeded in Pakistan,
“I became a journalist partly so that I would not have to rely on the press
for my information”. The best tribute to this great public intellectual of
our time consists in following his advice on what constitutes the hallowed
conception of public spirited journalism. Dr
Arif Azad, a development consultant, is a social and public policy specialist
based in Islamabad.
Extreme
defence Last Sunday, the vast
ground at Minar-e-Pakistan hosted thousands of charged Islamists of banned
and extremist groups. The backstage was covered with a 60 feet long yellow
hoarding calling the Muslims to Jihad and showing the pictures of Pakistan
Army’s arsenals including missiles, tanks, marines and fighter jets as a
symbol of war and jihad against, what the participants of the gathering
termed, ‘evil axis’. The gathering, a joint show
by extremist religious groups having direct or indirect stakes in
Afghanistan, was viewed by analysts as an attempt by the banned groups to
revive and reorganise themselves. Jamatud Dawa, the defunct Lashkar-e-Taiba,
Jamiat Ulema-e-Islam, led by Maulana Samiul Haq, who is considered one of the
mentors of Taliban, defunct Sipah-e-Sahaba Pakistan, Jamaat-e-Islami and over
two dozen other religious and like-minded political leaders like Ijazul Haq
and Sheikh Rasheed were all there speaking to a crowd of not less than 70,000
people. The speeches rejected
American interference in the region, showed support to the Taliban fighting
in Afghanistan and denounced the Pakistani government for awarding the Most
Favourite Nation (MFN) status to neighbouring India. The conference was named
‘Difa-e-Pakistan Conference’ (Defence of Pakistan) with a one-point
agenda — to wage Jihad against India and America. It was arranged under the
banner of newly-created Difa-e-Pakistan Council — an alliance of over 40
relegious and political groups — led by Maulana Samiul Haq. Hafiz Muhammad
Saeed, chief of JuD, also addressed the rally. Political analyst Prof
Hasan Askari Rizvi terms the holding of this rally alarming. “There are
three angles of this conference,” he says, adding, “It seems JuD has
started playing an active role in Pakistan’s domestic politics, which was
not there in the past.” The other aspect of the rally, he says, is an
effort to revive banned and defunct groups like Sipah-e- Sahaba Pakistan
under such platforms from where they can organise themselves and operate
easily. Recalling the hue and cry
at Kerry-Lugar Bill, Raymond Davis protests, and now Nato strike at Pakistani
checkpost, Rizvi says the military has always encouraged these groups
whenever it needed them. “This seems another bid to promote
anti-Americanism. Such gatherings and opportunities have also enabled these
groups to show their strength. Now they have developed their structures at
grass-root level. Such gatherings reinforce the negative image of Pakistan at
the international level, making it difficult to defend Pakistan at the United
Nations.” However, Rizvi says, it is premature to say that these groups are
preparing to jump into politics after forming an alliance for the next
elections. The council also plans to organise similar gatherings in
Rawalpindi and Karachi by February 2012. “The US wants to
eliminate Pakistan’s nuclear power. Afghans and Pakistanis are Muslim
brothers and American attacks from the Pakistani air bases cannot be
tolerated any more,” said Hafiz Muhammad Saeed, chief of JuD, speaking at
the rally. “We will also lobby in the parliament to oppose the MFN status
to India.” Muhammad Amir Rana,
Director Pak Institute for Peace Studies (PIPS), takes such announcements and
warnings by these militant groups as signals to America by the Pakistani
military establishment that the stakeholders in Afghanistan are united and
ready to talk. “This can also be seen as a pressure tactic, indicating to
America that it will have to accept some Pakistani terms and conditions for
closing the war-theatre in Afghanistan.” Rana believes these groups
are directly or indirectly associated with Taliban at political level. He too
rules out the possibility of any election alliance as a result of such
gatherings. “Extremism and militancy
has become a permanent feature of Pakistan and this situation will either
continue or get worse unless the state comes up with a commitment to rein in
such groups,” Rizvi concludes.
On Thursday December 15,
2011, scores of ‘activists’ gathered outside the Lahore Press Club to
protest against the Nato attack on Pakistani troops. They paid tribute to
soldiers who lost their lives in the attack by lighting candles and lamps. An
illuminated ‘PAKISTAN’ was also designed with hundreds of candles to give
a message of solidarity with the army against any invader. The rally demanded the
government cut off the Nato supplies on a permanent basis and plead the case
of the Nato attack in the UN Security Council. The protesters were carrying
national flags, placards and banners inscribed with pro-military, anti-Nato
slogans like ‘Pak fauj zindabad’ (long live Pakistan Army), ‘America
murdabad’ (death to America) and ‘Amrikio bhag jao’ (American run
away). They also burnt the effigy of US President Obama. Patriotic songs were
sung on loud speakers on the road, causing a major traffic blockade in the
city for more than two hours. They were all members of
the Civil Society Front (CSF), a name never heard of before. People came
together on the request of Dr Anjum Amjad, chairperson of the Front and PML-Q’s
ex-MPA and wife of Dr Amjad Chaudhry who is chairman of a leading land
developer company in the country. A day before the protest gathering, the
Civil Society Front also got published advertisements against the Nato
attacks in prominent spaces in mainstream English and Urdu language
newspapers of the country. Interestingly, no
mainstream civil society face or organisation took part in this protest
march. In fact, most of them say they are not familiar with this organisation.
“I have never heard of this front in the past. It is neither part of the
Pakistan NGO forum, a platform of all major NGOs of the country, nor
associated with Joint Action Committee (JAC) for People’s Right, a platform
of Lahore-based NGOs and civil society organisations,” says Mohammad
Tahseen, Executive Director South Asia Partnership (SAP). I.A. Rehman, director HRCP,
says that it is not bad to have a new front of civil society in Lahore, but
we need to see the motives behind it. “Most people in Pakistan along with
civil society organisations have protested the Nato attacks, but some of them
have been doing it for their interests. If somebody is an estate developer
and also wants to work at Defence Housing Society, he or she will have to
take care of their interests,” he tells TNS, adding that such organistions
are established by those who have established “Pakistan Defence Council of
Mullas.” Farooq Tariq, spokesperson
for the Labour Party Pakistan, goes further to elaborate the motives behind
such organisations. “We have been in the field for the last 25 years, but
never got the kind of press coverage this Front got in its first protest.
This mystery can easily be solved by looking deep into the message of this
front. It is totally pro-establishment. Its main objective is to show that
establishment’s voice is the masses’ voice.” Tariq says that people
behind the Front are either property dealers or traders and they are using
their resources and contacts to malign the civil society of the country. He
also questions the credibility of Rukham Khan, spokesperson CSF. Rukham Khan, however,
defends CSF, saying there are 20-25 organisations that hold monopoly on this
sector and most of them do not connect them with the mainstream agenda of the
society. “I have never seen them raising voice against the US role in
Pakistan. They have also been giving an impression that civil society and
NGOs are liberal and pro-West. There are several other civil society
organisations and NGOs in the country too. We have formed the Civil Society
Front to give them a voice,” he tells TNS. “We do not need foreign
funding for our organisations, so we will never toe their agenda. We manage
most of the funding from our members which include people from corporate
sector, trade organisations and social sector. I will be happy if I am termed
a Pakistani agent instead of an American or Indian agent.” Marvi Sirmad, an
Islamabad-based civil society activist, believes that such organistions are
established to legitimise the policy of establishment. “We saw such
organisations and people after the Kerry-Lugar Bill, May 2 fiasco and Mehran
base attack. They always have similar flags and slogans.” |
|