Taking a close look at a city is like reading the hopes, aspirations and pride of everyone who built it. Take a close look at Islamabad in all its pompous perplexity and clinical contradictions and not much popular ownership is apparent. Not that it prevents it from boasting a large number of peculiar characteristics even though these never show up in tourist brochures. It is, for instance, the ‘newest’ proper city in the country, the ‘newest’ city of Pakistan with a population of a million or more (the eighth in the country now) and even the ‘newest’ city in Asia that is also the capital of a country.
Cynics could also emphasise Islamabad is the newest capital of Pakistan! (Karachi was the last, remember, anyone?) And, in this fact, emerges a side to the city that is debated little. A golden jubilee is a good time for us to revisit the historic compulsions that made Islamabad not just the federal capital of Pakistan but a city that was built from scratch not too long ago. When Pakistan was created in 1947, its biggest city then, as now, was Karachi and was, after not a too-lengthy discussion, nominated and designated as the capital of the country. That’s where the founder and first leader of the country, Mohammed Ali Jinnah, set about his government.
Capital investment
In less than 15 years the founder was dead, the first prime minister assassinated, the country had its first experience of Martial Law and a military ruler and a second capital — Islamabad. Some years after the coup, the military led by General Ayub Khan (who went on to declare himself field marshal) faced stiff political resistance from the streets of Karachi, particularly language and religion riots, forcing the unelected regime to confront the protesters with force. The protracted political turmoil forced the military ruler to make a decision that would seal the fate of Pakistan: shift the capital away from the teeming noisy and nosy civilians who could be kept at bay far away.
Ayub first decided Abbottabad, his hometown, as the new capital but was persuaded it lay on an active seismic faultline and opted instead for the plains of Potohar ringed by the scenic Margalla Hills and close to the Raj-era garrison town of Rawalpindi that would provide available basic infrastructure to base the military. Starting in 1960, Ayub oversaw the rise of a brand new city at a relatively blistering pace. He had Greeks design it and Turks build it and announced a public award to nominate a name for the new capital.
Capital punishment
Islamabad it was named and it came to be the second capital of Pakistan. Ironically, it also became, in barely a decade, the former capital of a future (while the civil war lasted) country — Bangladesh — and so serves as the vanguard of the relatively new as also the relatively old. Within a decade of being the new seat of government, it failed to serve its declared principal purpose of a symbol of the glorified federation by losing two-fifths of the territory and just over half the population it governed.
The city may have been new but it was built in the fashion of ancient times when cities grew out of military posts established. It says something about the mala fide raison d’être of Islamabad’s genesis that for roughly the first half of its existence, the population of the federal capital was less than the size of the military! That the nascent federal capital and the military headquarters existed side by side was, therefore, by design. The military had clearly decided that they were better off ruling the country from a base that had no political ownership and was not rooted in a sub-nationalism that could trouble the generals. The next 40 years proved it: the coups of General Ziaul Haq and General Pervez Musharraf were so easy to conduct, it took barely two hours of work each time.
Capital intensive
The formula was easy — seize the Prime Minister House, Pakistan Television and Pakistan Broadcasting Corporation in the smallish (and almost provincial) Islamabad and you had the country. Since the federal capital itself had local residents in a small minority — the bulk of the population, government servants, drawn from the far off federating units with no local ties and stakes — there would be no resistance. And there never has been. The adjacent city of Rawalpindi was a garrison city and could never create trouble — and never did.
In this way, this city, tailor-made for friendly military takeovers and khaki rule, has served its intended purpose well. It is difficult to imagine a military power based in the densely populated and short-tempered Karachi or Lahore or Peshawar to both seize the city and hold it virtually indefinitely as Islamabad has proved. Indeed, Karachi, which forced the military out and Dhaka, which the military couldn’t hold once the residents turned against it, prove Islamabad’s purposeful exception.
Capital capers
Similarly despotic dispensations and regimes have done an Islamabad elsewhere in the world. Finding holding angrily confident Karachi-like cities Rio de Janeiro in Brazil, Almaty in Kazakhstan and Lagos in Nigeria difficult, tinpot dictators or military-backed elites in these countries have created new administrative capitals to both entrench themselves and keep their citizens at bay. Brazil has Brasilia, Kazakhstan has Astana and Nigeria has Abuja as their versions of Islamabad — devoid of locally-rooted residents, orderly, glittering, resource-stacked cities that serve as functional utopias and safely entrenched power centres.
Little wonder then that Islamabad offers all the telltale signs of a city designed for an ulterior purpose that seems like a support resource for the elites. Islamabad is the only ‘civilian’ territory in Pakistan without self-rule (the only other regions in the country without elected representation are the cantonments). There is no local government in Islamabad. No democracy by law or practice in the capital of a democratic country! No elected local assembly or council in a city that houses the elected bicameral parliament in the country. The parliament may rule the country but the city is ruled by unelected municipal bureaucrats!
Capital crimes
This is a city where your life is lived out along residential grids that reveal your financial status. Even in death, your place of burial in graveyards determines your social status. Hospitals, eateries, parks, schools and offices all are straight giveaways to the ranks and grades that this city brands its citizens by and makes them wear it on their sleeves. Sure, there are exceptions but all end up only proving the rule. This is a city where there are more wheels than there are legs — over half a million cars in a city of 1.2 million people. The high literacy rate of the city fails to match the low ratio of the regions of the country it rules.
Few in Karachi build a second house in Peshawar and fewer still in Lahore do so in Quetta but nearly everyone who is anyone in the country builds one house in Islamabad. And yet the housing shortage in the city is over 350,000 and no new residential sector has been opened, allotted and built in 15 years. All of this is by design. A city where the cheapest 125 square yards (5 marla) plot of land in open sectors is for Rs 4 million is a city of the bourgeois. This city is designed to be straight and ordered, neat and clipped. But ironically, the city has come to represent an ideal that espoused endless opportunities for a country created not too long before it but has only managed to accumulate the best of the worst bits while the country it governs has the worst of the best. There’s something missing in this city that everyone in the country is looking fo
Saturday, September 3, 2011
Abuse of language threatens USA by Dr James Zogby
The last administration displayed a rather perverse and dangerous penchant for dressing up their behaviour, providing it with religious or patriotic intent. President George Bush packaged the Iraq war, for example, as America’s mission – having been charged by God to bring the gift of freedom to the world. The “war on terror” was presented through the lens of World War II and the Cold War and transformed into a battle of cosmic proportions against those who “hate our freedom” and “our way of life.” The US troops who were sent into battle in Iraq were seen as “defending our freedom” or “making America safe.”
One could, of course, argue with this crass manipulation of potent symbols, though, at the time, few did. Politicians were especially hesitant to criticise this hyper-inflated rhetoric not wanting to appear insensitive to the public’s fear or disrespectful of the sacrifices of those who had died or been maimed in the Iraq war.
Left unchallenged, this abuse of language continued to grow and become accepted in some quarters, doing damage to our political discourse and distorting our sense of reality. Speaking to the National Tea Party Convention last month, for example, former Vice Presidential candidate, Sarah Palin rebuked the Obama administration for charging a would be terrorist as a criminal defendant and providing him the opportunity to “invoke our constitutional right…” She went on: “Our US constitutional rights. Our rights that you fought and were willing to die for to protect in our constitution. The rights that my son, as an infantryman in the United States army, is willing to die for. The protections provided, thanks to you, we are going to bestow them on a terrorist who hates our constitution and tries to destroy our constitution and our country”.
While Palin is wrong on so many levels, her comments, reflecting the degree to which the national discussion has become distorted and out of touch with reality, must be rebutted.
First of all, it is just plain silly to bestow upon a pathetic failed would-be airplane bomber the capacity or even the intention to “destroy our constitution and our country”. I have no doubt of his evil motives or of the hatred in his heart, but making him or those who sent him larger than they are serves no useful purpose.
Second, as painful as it may be to look at reality, head on, we must. After seven years of the Iraq war and nine years of Afghanistan, it must be clear that these were not wars to defend “our constitution.” One of these wars was designed to depose and punish those who cruelly attacked us on 9/11 murdering 3,000 innocents. The other was based on a series of fabricated motives none of which could be construed as playing a role in making America safer or defending the constitution.
And while we are on the subject of the constitution, it is important to take Palin to task for embracing what has become a popular misconception and that is that the rights detailed in the constitution are “ours” alone. Leaving aside former President George Bush’s disturbing claim that America was charged by the Almighty to bring the “gift of freedom” to the world, the US courts have continually affirmed that the rights described in the constitution apply to all “persons” who reside in the United States, not just citizens. Not only that, but the courts have also determined that the constitutional rights of habeas corpus and due process and protections against “cruel and unusual punishment” and self-incrimination also apply to prisoners in US custody in Guantanamo or even some of those detained at Bagram in Afghanistan.
It is vitally important to pierce through the cloud of obfuscation and inflated rhetoric of the past decade and to advance a clearer understanding of who we are as a people and the exact nature of our role in the world. The reality we will discover is neither Bush’s divinely ordained America with its saving mission, nor Palin’s more narrowly defined chauvinism.
It will require that we undergo a painful process of self-examination demanding full transparency and full accountability for past behaviour. As difficult as it may be to acknowledge, we cannot continue to ignore the fact that innocent lives were lost in an unnecessary war and America’s reputation was sullied by horrific and illegal acts committed in our name.
Finally, it is important that Americans study our history and our foundational documents. It is shocking to note how few know the Bill of Rights. Even more disturbing, is to note as F Lee Bailey, one of our nation’s great defence attorneys, once did, that if the language of the constitution and the Bill of Rights were reintroduced today they would be seen as “unpatriotic” and would in all likelihood not receive public support and would not pass Congress.
In the end, the damage done by this abuse of language goes beyond a wasteful war and confusion in our national discussion of critical issues. By inflaming passions in support of unconstitutional behaviour, this rhetoric puts at risk the very freedoms it claims to be defending.
The writer is the president of the Arab American Institute, Washington DC.
One could, of course, argue with this crass manipulation of potent symbols, though, at the time, few did. Politicians were especially hesitant to criticise this hyper-inflated rhetoric not wanting to appear insensitive to the public’s fear or disrespectful of the sacrifices of those who had died or been maimed in the Iraq war.
Left unchallenged, this abuse of language continued to grow and become accepted in some quarters, doing damage to our political discourse and distorting our sense of reality. Speaking to the National Tea Party Convention last month, for example, former Vice Presidential candidate, Sarah Palin rebuked the Obama administration for charging a would be terrorist as a criminal defendant and providing him the opportunity to “invoke our constitutional right…” She went on: “Our US constitutional rights. Our rights that you fought and were willing to die for to protect in our constitution. The rights that my son, as an infantryman in the United States army, is willing to die for. The protections provided, thanks to you, we are going to bestow them on a terrorist who hates our constitution and tries to destroy our constitution and our country”.
While Palin is wrong on so many levels, her comments, reflecting the degree to which the national discussion has become distorted and out of touch with reality, must be rebutted.
First of all, it is just plain silly to bestow upon a pathetic failed would-be airplane bomber the capacity or even the intention to “destroy our constitution and our country”. I have no doubt of his evil motives or of the hatred in his heart, but making him or those who sent him larger than they are serves no useful purpose.
Second, as painful as it may be to look at reality, head on, we must. After seven years of the Iraq war and nine years of Afghanistan, it must be clear that these were not wars to defend “our constitution.” One of these wars was designed to depose and punish those who cruelly attacked us on 9/11 murdering 3,000 innocents. The other was based on a series of fabricated motives none of which could be construed as playing a role in making America safer or defending the constitution.
And while we are on the subject of the constitution, it is important to take Palin to task for embracing what has become a popular misconception and that is that the rights detailed in the constitution are “ours” alone. Leaving aside former President George Bush’s disturbing claim that America was charged by the Almighty to bring the “gift of freedom” to the world, the US courts have continually affirmed that the rights described in the constitution apply to all “persons” who reside in the United States, not just citizens. Not only that, but the courts have also determined that the constitutional rights of habeas corpus and due process and protections against “cruel and unusual punishment” and self-incrimination also apply to prisoners in US custody in Guantanamo or even some of those detained at Bagram in Afghanistan.
It is vitally important to pierce through the cloud of obfuscation and inflated rhetoric of the past decade and to advance a clearer understanding of who we are as a people and the exact nature of our role in the world. The reality we will discover is neither Bush’s divinely ordained America with its saving mission, nor Palin’s more narrowly defined chauvinism.
It will require that we undergo a painful process of self-examination demanding full transparency and full accountability for past behaviour. As difficult as it may be to acknowledge, we cannot continue to ignore the fact that innocent lives were lost in an unnecessary war and America’s reputation was sullied by horrific and illegal acts committed in our name.
Finally, it is important that Americans study our history and our foundational documents. It is shocking to note how few know the Bill of Rights. Even more disturbing, is to note as F Lee Bailey, one of our nation’s great defence attorneys, once did, that if the language of the constitution and the Bill of Rights were reintroduced today they would be seen as “unpatriotic” and would in all likelihood not receive public support and would not pass Congress.
In the end, the damage done by this abuse of language goes beyond a wasteful war and confusion in our national discussion of critical issues. By inflaming passions in support of unconstitutional behaviour, this rhetoric puts at risk the very freedoms it claims to be defending.
The writer is the president of the Arab American Institute, Washington DC.
Culture change by Chris Cork
There is something of a slightly sinful pleasure in seeing the holders of fake degrees exposed, with the numbers going up by the day. It is variously talked of as a ‘scandal’ or a ‘crisis’ and those of us that scribble for a living have had great sport sticking pins in the men and women whose duplicity is exposed. The usual conspiracy theories get trotted out with the current favourite being that this is all a plot to provoke a mid-term poll and bring about a change of government. Does it look like it’s going to happen? No – and never did. The most likely scenario is that the current government will stagger its way to the next election and then be roundly defeated by a very disappointed electorate. They will be replaced by another group of dynasts who promise jam tomorrow but never jam today and the cycle will continue – but maybe with a difference.
In under three years time I will celebrate my twentieth year of contact with Pakistan and will have lived and worked here for much of that time. Like most long-term observers I have seen a gradual decline in the integrity of Pakistan as a state at just about every level – or at every level I have regular contact with. I have met corruption and deceit on a grand scale whilst working in the NGO sector, been aware of contracts fraudulently obtained, of backhanders being paid and of my own direct contact with the wonderful world of corruption.
I recall sitting across from a senior official in Kashmir and Northern Affairs Division who said, without batting an eyelid, that it was going to cost me Rs20,000 for him to write a ‘No objection Certificate’ which would enable my visa renewal. Then there was the senior officer in a well-known international NGO who had an interest in the building of a local school who wanted me to hand over a grant cheque to him and his pals in a hotel in Gilgit – rather than to a representative of the community in public view on the school playground. Yet another – a politician this time – who put a fat envelope on my desk and indicated that this was in exchange for me giving his son who I knew and had all the intellectual capacity of a goldfish – a job.
Refusal of each brought me considerable difficulty. I had to leave the country at short notice and re-apply for another visa from the UK. The man who I refused to give the cheque to retaliated by claiming at a very senior level that I was a Jewish spy (I have never made a secret of my atheism and can do nothing whatsoever about the spy thing because most people I meet – including my immediate colleagues in the office – assume I am a spy) with consequences that I still bump into today. The politician that I offended by not giving a job to his useless son did all he could to make life difficult for me and my family for years afterwards.
My experiences will not be much different to anybody else who has worked at a senior level in the aid business here or been involved in anything that had large sums of money or influence attached to it.
‘This is Pakistan’ they say with a shrug and a smile – and I wonder how often I have heard that over the years. ‘This is Pakistan’ and you just have to accept it. This is the way we do things here… pay up.
Challenging that assumption is never an option or at least only an option if you are prepared to put up with some industrial-strength harassment – or is it?
The origins of the fake-degree issue lie in the culture of dishonesty at every level of society that is decades old. Over time there has become a perversion of traditional normative values, a blurring of the distinction between ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ – and a strong tendency to lie if found out in any falsehood, thus compounding the moral value failure. I find this twisted culture everywhere I go, it is not limited to the rich and powerful though they are perhaps the most fluent of its exponents. But nothing is immutable, and as the numbers of fake-degree holders in parliament and the provincial assemblies grow there is something happening that gives me a glimmer of hope. The ripple effect.
Suddenly, universities are thinking it might be a good idea to check the authenticity of the academic credentials of their faculty members; suddenly there are lawyers some of whom have practised for decades, shown to have degrees that are not worth the paper they are printed on. It is not going to be long before there is a tightening of recruitment procedures in the civil service – and come the next election any potential candidate needs to make very sure that their ‘A’ level in biology is the real deal. What we may – and you will have to permit me a minor outbreak of optimism – be seeing is a growing confidence to challenge the orthodoxy of corruption.
Hitherto there has been no space in which it was safe to make that challenge, no space in which there was room for an alternative narrative that spoke to a higher set of values than the ones currently in play. If we can begin to clean up our parliament and provincial assemblies, have properly-qualified men and women teaching in our universities and civil servants who believe that ‘ethics’ need to be internalised rather than filed in the waste-paper basket – then we might be on to something. If we can begin to reset the checks and balances, to restore in the collective mind a clear difference between ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ and the importance of doing the former rather than the latter, then something at least can be salvaged from the wreckage.
Now where did I put that file with my academic certificates in?
The writer is a British social worker settled in Pakistan.
Email: manticore73@ gmail.com
In under three years time I will celebrate my twentieth year of contact with Pakistan and will have lived and worked here for much of that time. Like most long-term observers I have seen a gradual decline in the integrity of Pakistan as a state at just about every level – or at every level I have regular contact with. I have met corruption and deceit on a grand scale whilst working in the NGO sector, been aware of contracts fraudulently obtained, of backhanders being paid and of my own direct contact with the wonderful world of corruption.
I recall sitting across from a senior official in Kashmir and Northern Affairs Division who said, without batting an eyelid, that it was going to cost me Rs20,000 for him to write a ‘No objection Certificate’ which would enable my visa renewal. Then there was the senior officer in a well-known international NGO who had an interest in the building of a local school who wanted me to hand over a grant cheque to him and his pals in a hotel in Gilgit – rather than to a representative of the community in public view on the school playground. Yet another – a politician this time – who put a fat envelope on my desk and indicated that this was in exchange for me giving his son who I knew and had all the intellectual capacity of a goldfish – a job.
Refusal of each brought me considerable difficulty. I had to leave the country at short notice and re-apply for another visa from the UK. The man who I refused to give the cheque to retaliated by claiming at a very senior level that I was a Jewish spy (I have never made a secret of my atheism and can do nothing whatsoever about the spy thing because most people I meet – including my immediate colleagues in the office – assume I am a spy) with consequences that I still bump into today. The politician that I offended by not giving a job to his useless son did all he could to make life difficult for me and my family for years afterwards.
My experiences will not be much different to anybody else who has worked at a senior level in the aid business here or been involved in anything that had large sums of money or influence attached to it.
‘This is Pakistan’ they say with a shrug and a smile – and I wonder how often I have heard that over the years. ‘This is Pakistan’ and you just have to accept it. This is the way we do things here… pay up.
Challenging that assumption is never an option or at least only an option if you are prepared to put up with some industrial-strength harassment – or is it?
The origins of the fake-degree issue lie in the culture of dishonesty at every level of society that is decades old. Over time there has become a perversion of traditional normative values, a blurring of the distinction between ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ – and a strong tendency to lie if found out in any falsehood, thus compounding the moral value failure. I find this twisted culture everywhere I go, it is not limited to the rich and powerful though they are perhaps the most fluent of its exponents. But nothing is immutable, and as the numbers of fake-degree holders in parliament and the provincial assemblies grow there is something happening that gives me a glimmer of hope. The ripple effect.
Suddenly, universities are thinking it might be a good idea to check the authenticity of the academic credentials of their faculty members; suddenly there are lawyers some of whom have practised for decades, shown to have degrees that are not worth the paper they are printed on. It is not going to be long before there is a tightening of recruitment procedures in the civil service – and come the next election any potential candidate needs to make very sure that their ‘A’ level in biology is the real deal. What we may – and you will have to permit me a minor outbreak of optimism – be seeing is a growing confidence to challenge the orthodoxy of corruption.
Hitherto there has been no space in which it was safe to make that challenge, no space in which there was room for an alternative narrative that spoke to a higher set of values than the ones currently in play. If we can begin to clean up our parliament and provincial assemblies, have properly-qualified men and women teaching in our universities and civil servants who believe that ‘ethics’ need to be internalised rather than filed in the waste-paper basket – then we might be on to something. If we can begin to reset the checks and balances, to restore in the collective mind a clear difference between ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ and the importance of doing the former rather than the latter, then something at least can be salvaged from the wreckage.
Now where did I put that file with my academic certificates in?
The writer is a British social worker settled in Pakistan.
Email: manticore73@ gmail.com
Reducing the trust deficit by Dr Mubashir Hasan
At his press conference on May 24, Indian prime minister Manmohan Singh revealed that at his recent summit meeting with Prime Minister Gilani in Bhutan “we agreed that trust deficit is a major problem blocking progress in the direction of going forward and that it should be our common endeavour to reduce the trust deficit.”
It is generally realised that the trust deficit has come to exist not because the armies of the two countries expect a war to break out between them, not because Pakistan calls itself an Islamic republic and India prides itself as a secular state, not because the Muslims are in majority in Pakistan and India is a Hindu-majority state, not because they subscribe to different political ideologies, and not because they had four armed conflicts in the first 24 years of their history.
There is no trust deficit between 1.25 billion poor, backward and oppressed people on the two sides of the border. The wretched of the two countries neither gain nor lose by not trusting each other. However, the ruling elites of the two countries, helped by their respective strategic communities, do harbour a strong trust deficit and make it impossible for peace-seeking political leaders to prevail. Strong vested interests of the ruling elites on both sides of the border feed the trust deficit.
The major issues concerning the peoples of Pakistan and India pertain to the normalisation of the regimes of travel, trade, transportation, free flow of information, cultural, educational and scientific exchanges and release of prisoners. These are not matters which carry much weight in contributing to the trust deficit.
Prime Minister Narsimha Rao was the first to take the bold step, one inconceivable until that time, of issuing visas to a group of more than 100 Pakistanis to hold the first convention of the Pakistan-India Forum for Peace and Democracy at Delhi (PIPFPD) in February 1995. The follow-up conventions were held in Lahore (November 1995), Calcutta (December 1996), and Peshawar (November 1998), with attendance reaching the 300 mark. The enthusiasm generated among the two peoples by the conventions did reduce the trust deficit and was certainly a factor which permitted Prime Ministers Nawaz Sharif and Atal Bihari Vajpaye to meet and issue the Lahore Declaration in 1999. Unrestricted issuing of visas and free flow of information, along with cultural exchanges, will greatly help in reducing the trust deficit further.
The ruling elites of the two countries, having interests different from the interests of the people, do not trust each other’s intentions when it comes to entering into negotiations to resolve the issues of strategic content. Even if the negotiators forget their vested interest for a moment, they cannot believe that those facing them across the table have the power or the capability to deliver on the promise they would make at the negotiating table. To the arguments put forward by the leaders of the respective strategic communities, our weak prime ministers succumb.
They fear that since the strategic communities have the capability to mobilise a section of the media and public opinion against peace efforts, their political party may lose the next general elections. If our prime ministers were statesmen they would overrule the advice from below, win the next general elections and also make their place in history.
Take the case of a resolution to the Kashmir issue, the mother of the trust deficit between the ruling elites and their strategic communities. The governments of India and Pakistan should abandon the plan of first coming to some agreement among themselves before presenting it to the people of Kashmir on both sides of the Line of Control.
Such a presentation, notwithstanding any secret agreement with sections of Kashmiri leaders, will prematurely expose the governmental consensus and materially damage the consensus for the future. They will never be able to secure the agreement of all the political leaders of the former state of J&K on their joint proposal. Those who do not fall in line will hold the trump cards in their hands, for the simple reason that the bulk of the population of the former state has adversarial views on India and Pakistan.
Instead, should the two governments jointly approach the leaders of J&K to present a joint scheme to resolve the issue, simultaneously safeguarding the security and other vital interests of India and Pakistan, the J&K leaders will, to the best of my knowledge and assessment, be prepared to: (a) let India and Pakistan defend the border with China as they do now, along with access to strategic communications; (b) the line of control will stand erased (however, arrangements will be devised and international guarantees secured that neither India nor Pakistan can aggress against the boundaries of the former state); (c) the peoples of India and Pakistan shall enjoy the all privileges of travel and trade over the entire state as India enjoys today over the area lying to the east of the Line of Control; (d) the future residents of the former state will enjoy the same privileges including the use of communication systems of Pakistan and India as they do today; (e) The new model for the future internal governance of the state shall give Jammu, Ladakh and other areas as much autonomy as will ensure freedom from oppression of any one ethnic group or community over others.
The writer is a former finance minister.
Email: mh1@ lhr.comsats.net.pk
It is generally realised that the trust deficit has come to exist not because the armies of the two countries expect a war to break out between them, not because Pakistan calls itself an Islamic republic and India prides itself as a secular state, not because the Muslims are in majority in Pakistan and India is a Hindu-majority state, not because they subscribe to different political ideologies, and not because they had four armed conflicts in the first 24 years of their history.
There is no trust deficit between 1.25 billion poor, backward and oppressed people on the two sides of the border. The wretched of the two countries neither gain nor lose by not trusting each other. However, the ruling elites of the two countries, helped by their respective strategic communities, do harbour a strong trust deficit and make it impossible for peace-seeking political leaders to prevail. Strong vested interests of the ruling elites on both sides of the border feed the trust deficit.
The major issues concerning the peoples of Pakistan and India pertain to the normalisation of the regimes of travel, trade, transportation, free flow of information, cultural, educational and scientific exchanges and release of prisoners. These are not matters which carry much weight in contributing to the trust deficit.
Prime Minister Narsimha Rao was the first to take the bold step, one inconceivable until that time, of issuing visas to a group of more than 100 Pakistanis to hold the first convention of the Pakistan-India Forum for Peace and Democracy at Delhi (PIPFPD) in February 1995. The follow-up conventions were held in Lahore (November 1995), Calcutta (December 1996), and Peshawar (November 1998), with attendance reaching the 300 mark. The enthusiasm generated among the two peoples by the conventions did reduce the trust deficit and was certainly a factor which permitted Prime Ministers Nawaz Sharif and Atal Bihari Vajpaye to meet and issue the Lahore Declaration in 1999. Unrestricted issuing of visas and free flow of information, along with cultural exchanges, will greatly help in reducing the trust deficit further.
The ruling elites of the two countries, having interests different from the interests of the people, do not trust each other’s intentions when it comes to entering into negotiations to resolve the issues of strategic content. Even if the negotiators forget their vested interest for a moment, they cannot believe that those facing them across the table have the power or the capability to deliver on the promise they would make at the negotiating table. To the arguments put forward by the leaders of the respective strategic communities, our weak prime ministers succumb.
They fear that since the strategic communities have the capability to mobilise a section of the media and public opinion against peace efforts, their political party may lose the next general elections. If our prime ministers were statesmen they would overrule the advice from below, win the next general elections and also make their place in history.
Take the case of a resolution to the Kashmir issue, the mother of the trust deficit between the ruling elites and their strategic communities. The governments of India and Pakistan should abandon the plan of first coming to some agreement among themselves before presenting it to the people of Kashmir on both sides of the Line of Control.
Such a presentation, notwithstanding any secret agreement with sections of Kashmiri leaders, will prematurely expose the governmental consensus and materially damage the consensus for the future. They will never be able to secure the agreement of all the political leaders of the former state of J&K on their joint proposal. Those who do not fall in line will hold the trump cards in their hands, for the simple reason that the bulk of the population of the former state has adversarial views on India and Pakistan.
Instead, should the two governments jointly approach the leaders of J&K to present a joint scheme to resolve the issue, simultaneously safeguarding the security and other vital interests of India and Pakistan, the J&K leaders will, to the best of my knowledge and assessment, be prepared to: (a) let India and Pakistan defend the border with China as they do now, along with access to strategic communications; (b) the line of control will stand erased (however, arrangements will be devised and international guarantees secured that neither India nor Pakistan can aggress against the boundaries of the former state); (c) the peoples of India and Pakistan shall enjoy the all privileges of travel and trade over the entire state as India enjoys today over the area lying to the east of the Line of Control; (d) the future residents of the former state will enjoy the same privileges including the use of communication systems of Pakistan and India as they do today; (e) The new model for the future internal governance of the state shall give Jammu, Ladakh and other areas as much autonomy as will ensure freedom from oppression of any one ethnic group or community over others.
The writer is a former finance minister.
Email: mh1@ lhr.comsats.net.pk
Conscience! Conscience! Conscience! by DR A.H. KHAYAL
DR A.H. KHAYAL
Politicians are generally born without a conscience. It is Nature’s obligation to ensure that no politician is born with a conscience. But sometimes Nature’s watchfulness slackens. Because of this slackness, a politician is born with a conscience. When he grows up and becomes politically active, he experiences that something is obstructing his activities.
He cogitates and cogitates. Suddenly, there is a flash across the sky. The flash warns him: “It is your conscience which is blocking your way to glory.” The politician becomes furious and immediately gets his conscience surgically removed. From that moment onwards whatever he does is a brilliant success.
Plato declared that the world’s misery was a creation of kings and princes. He asserted: “Unless philosophers rule as kings or those who now as kings become philosophers there will be no respite for humanity from evil.” Obviously, the implication is that kings are conscienceless creatures whereas every philosopher has a gigantic conscience.
If the masses of a country keep dying of starvation, it is not the starvation which kills them. They die of starvation because the rulers don’t have consciences. A conscientious ruler would kill himself before starvation killed a citizen. Plato’s philosopher-king is a ruler with a great conscience. Under such a ruler, immoral politicalism cannot survive. If Plato were to revisit the world, the professional politicians would jointly assassinate him mercilessly. The professional politicians are modern versions of kings and princes.
An animal is an animal simply because it has no conscience. A genuine human being is a genuine human being only because he has a sensitive conscience. A man’s humanity is directly proportional to the quality of his conscience. The greater the quality of the conscience, the greater the humanity. When an animal looks at a conscienceless ruler, it enthusiastically proclaims: “Look, there is one of my human brethren.”
We desperately need a supreme leader. A supreme leader means a leader with a supreme conscience. God’s greatest gift to a nation is a supreme leader. Let’s keep begging: “O’ God! Kindly bless us with a supreme leader.” We must keep on begging and begging and begging till our supplication is granted.
Obviously, there are conscienceless individuals in almost every profession. But the tragedy is that the number of such individuals in politics is far greater than the number of such individuals in any other profession. It is because of this gruesome reality that there has always been gruesome chaos in the world.
The golden age of mankind was the age when politics was not yet born. The day politics was born was the birthday of man’s misery. Because of general political dishonesty, our world is a hell. Only medical scientists can rescue us. These scientists should create some technology with the help of which a conscience could be implanted in a politician’s physiological structure.
Some theists claim that conscience is God’s voice. God’s voice commands: “Serve humanity.” A conscientious person firmly believes that he is born to serve humanity. He holds that there is no luxury in the world like serving humanity. Unfortunately, politics has not heard God’s voice. It is hard of hearing. It believes that there is only one luxury in the world. It is serving one’s own self at the cost of others.
Of all the professions which thrive on consciencelessness, the Devil loves politics the most. Politicians are the Devil’s blue-eyed boys. It is with the Devil’s blessings that the Israeli politicians have for decades been eating Palestinians’ flesh. They especially love eating Palestinian children’s flesh.
It is with the Devil’s blessings that Washington has for years been killing innocent Afghani women and children. If Nature had equipped politics with a conscience, the world would have been a peaceful world.
Robin Hood, a legendary robber, would rob the rich and lavish the booty on the poor. What a philanthropic conscience! In most of the countries, the rulers are robbing the national resources. The masses are miserable. They desperately need a ruler with a Robin Hoodian conscience.
The writer is an academic.
Politicians are generally born without a conscience. It is Nature’s obligation to ensure that no politician is born with a conscience. But sometimes Nature’s watchfulness slackens. Because of this slackness, a politician is born with a conscience. When he grows up and becomes politically active, he experiences that something is obstructing his activities.
He cogitates and cogitates. Suddenly, there is a flash across the sky. The flash warns him: “It is your conscience which is blocking your way to glory.” The politician becomes furious and immediately gets his conscience surgically removed. From that moment onwards whatever he does is a brilliant success.
Plato declared that the world’s misery was a creation of kings and princes. He asserted: “Unless philosophers rule as kings or those who now as kings become philosophers there will be no respite for humanity from evil.” Obviously, the implication is that kings are conscienceless creatures whereas every philosopher has a gigantic conscience.
If the masses of a country keep dying of starvation, it is not the starvation which kills them. They die of starvation because the rulers don’t have consciences. A conscientious ruler would kill himself before starvation killed a citizen. Plato’s philosopher-king is a ruler with a great conscience. Under such a ruler, immoral politicalism cannot survive. If Plato were to revisit the world, the professional politicians would jointly assassinate him mercilessly. The professional politicians are modern versions of kings and princes.
An animal is an animal simply because it has no conscience. A genuine human being is a genuine human being only because he has a sensitive conscience. A man’s humanity is directly proportional to the quality of his conscience. The greater the quality of the conscience, the greater the humanity. When an animal looks at a conscienceless ruler, it enthusiastically proclaims: “Look, there is one of my human brethren.”
We desperately need a supreme leader. A supreme leader means a leader with a supreme conscience. God’s greatest gift to a nation is a supreme leader. Let’s keep begging: “O’ God! Kindly bless us with a supreme leader.” We must keep on begging and begging and begging till our supplication is granted.
Obviously, there are conscienceless individuals in almost every profession. But the tragedy is that the number of such individuals in politics is far greater than the number of such individuals in any other profession. It is because of this gruesome reality that there has always been gruesome chaos in the world.
The golden age of mankind was the age when politics was not yet born. The day politics was born was the birthday of man’s misery. Because of general political dishonesty, our world is a hell. Only medical scientists can rescue us. These scientists should create some technology with the help of which a conscience could be implanted in a politician’s physiological structure.
Some theists claim that conscience is God’s voice. God’s voice commands: “Serve humanity.” A conscientious person firmly believes that he is born to serve humanity. He holds that there is no luxury in the world like serving humanity. Unfortunately, politics has not heard God’s voice. It is hard of hearing. It believes that there is only one luxury in the world. It is serving one’s own self at the cost of others.
Of all the professions which thrive on consciencelessness, the Devil loves politics the most. Politicians are the Devil’s blue-eyed boys. It is with the Devil’s blessings that the Israeli politicians have for decades been eating Palestinians’ flesh. They especially love eating Palestinian children’s flesh.
It is with the Devil’s blessings that Washington has for years been killing innocent Afghani women and children. If Nature had equipped politics with a conscience, the world would have been a peaceful world.
Robin Hood, a legendary robber, would rob the rich and lavish the booty on the poor. What a philanthropic conscience! In most of the countries, the rulers are robbing the national resources. The masses are miserable. They desperately need a ruler with a Robin Hoodian conscience.
The writer is an academic.
Advice, help and hypocrisy by Dr A Q Khan
Dr A Q Khan
In some of my previous columns I had written about Bhopal (the place of my birth), the beautiful parks, lakes and forests and the respect and affection among the people. It is now 58 years since I left Bhopal for my new homeland–Pakistan–but that state, its natural beauty, my friends, my teachers are still as fresh in my memory today as the streets, markets, parks and restaurants of Karachi and Islamabad. Bhopalis are just as fond of their city as Lahoris and Karachiites are of Lahore and Karachi.
In Bhopal we had many famous literary figures and some of the humorous writers and poets were a treat to read and listen to in recitals. One of these was a poet by the name of Abdul Ahad Khan Takhallus. He once wrote that the easiest and cheapest thing is to offer advice or suggestions, whether the other person likes it or not and whether they are asked for or not. He went on to say that sometimes a well-wisher’s sweet words or advice are a welcome source of consolation.
When someone is sick, it is a tradition in our culture for visitors, friends and relatives to bombard that person with all kinds of advice on treatments and medicines. If the patient follows them, the chances are that both the ailment and the patient will leave the world simultaneously.
This reminds one of doctors and hakims, who demand payment before dispensing advice. Their fees depend on their qualifications, experience and, above all, reputation. Usually blood and urine tests and X-rays are prescribed immediately, and often unnecessarily. It is now common practice for laboratories carrying out these tests to be associated with the doctors. Very often medicines have to be purchased from specific chemists. Fees paid, tests carried out, consultancy done and medicine prescribed, all that is left is for the patient to hope that it all works.
When we started the enrichment plant at Kahuta, one of my senior colleagues, on deputation from a defence organisation, informed me that an accountant from his organisation had set up a nursing home in Rawalpindi. It also had a testing laboratory and he had hired a few doctors and was now minting money. By coincidence, one of my staff members was admitted there and I paid a visit to him. I was horrified to see how dirty the place was, with flies swarming all over the place. The next day I instructed our medical officer, Col Shamsul Hasan, to hire two big houses in F-8, some nursing staff and a few doctors to provide medical care to our staff. That was the beginning of our medical services. We then purchased a large plot of land from the CDA in G-9 for larger facilities. The task of building the hospital was entrusted to Brig Dr Riaz Ahmed Chowhan (later lieutenant general and surgeon general of the army).
The second groups of those who give expensive advice are lawyers, who are often accused of fleecing their clients on one pretext or another. Most people feel that they intentionally prolong cases and charge separately for each hearing in order to make more money. The fee depends on the individual lawyer’s reputation about winning cases and about having the “necessary connections.” Most senior lawyers hire junior lawyers or have interns to prepare the cases with all the proper references and criminal codes, while they examine the completed case and then argue it in court. If they lose the case, the client is encouraged and given hope that it will be won upon appeal. The client has no option but to go along, as by now he is in their firm grip. All that is left for him to do is put his faith in the Almighty and the judge. We all know that, as far as the fee is concerned, it is never according to the law–if there is such a thing. It usually comes in two parts–the official small amount and the larger amount under the table with no receipt. Recently, many scandals about “famous” lawyers have been reported. I personally know of a famous lawyer who asked one of my acquaintances, in my presence, to pay Rs2 million officially and Rs3 million unofficially into his London account. Fortunately for my acquaintance, an upright lawyer took his case and accepted Rs1 million only after he won the case for his client. The recent scandals concerning the Bank of Punjab and Haris Steel Mills have been an eye-opener to many.
Another category of people without scruples about lying or false promises (this time without charging fees) is that of politicians and national leaders. One is at a loss to understand how they manage to lie and cheat so blatantly and still manage to have a following. While doctors, pirs and lawyers do manage to hold out some hope for their patients and clients, political leaders have no such saving grace. Their policies often push the poor into committing suicide, as we can read in the papers every day, and all this when a democratic government is supposed to be the panacea for all evils. The decisions they take lack all consideration for the poor and give no consolation at all.
Allah Almighty has warned: “Every nation has its term and when its term comes, they cannot put it off an hour, nor yet advance it.” (7:34.) “Think not that Allah does not heed the deeds of the wrongdoers. He but gives them respite against a day when their eyes will fixedly stare in horror.” (14:42.) “Do the people of the towns feel secure against the coming of Our wrath by night while they are asleep, or else do they feel secure against its coming in broad daylight while they are playing (carefree); do they feel secure against the plan (chastisement) of Allah? But no one can feel secure from the plan (wrath) of Allah, except those doomed to ruin.” (7:97-99.) The worst “benefactors” are the World Bank and the IMF. Whoever accepts their advice gets choked with debts and becomes their slave forever.
I would like to stress here that I do not want to create the impression that all doctors, lawyers and politicians are cheats, deceitful, liars and blood-suckers. I personally know many fine, honest, competent and God-fearing ones who help the needy in all possible ways. Their noble deeds have gone a long way in securing the survival of the country. I am grateful to the many doctors, lawyers, hotel and restaurant owners and shopkeepers who have refused to receive any payment from me.
There are many human beings who do noble deeds, but the actual Dispenser is the Almighty. He has explained this in the Quran in simple terms. “When trouble touches a man, he cries unto Us (in all postures)–lying down, on his side, or sitting or standing. But when We have solved his trouble, he passes on his way as if he had never cried to Us for a trouble that had touched him. Thus do the deeds of the transgressors seem fair in their eyes.” (10:12.) No doubt, it is Allah Almighty who gives honour to whom He likes and ignominy to whom He wishes.
Dr A Q Khan columns
In some of my previous columns I had written about Bhopal (the place of my birth), the beautiful parks, lakes and forests and the respect and affection among the people. It is now 58 years since I left Bhopal for my new homeland–Pakistan–but that state, its natural beauty, my friends, my teachers are still as fresh in my memory today as the streets, markets, parks and restaurants of Karachi and Islamabad. Bhopalis are just as fond of their city as Lahoris and Karachiites are of Lahore and Karachi.
In Bhopal we had many famous literary figures and some of the humorous writers and poets were a treat to read and listen to in recitals. One of these was a poet by the name of Abdul Ahad Khan Takhallus. He once wrote that the easiest and cheapest thing is to offer advice or suggestions, whether the other person likes it or not and whether they are asked for or not. He went on to say that sometimes a well-wisher’s sweet words or advice are a welcome source of consolation.
When someone is sick, it is a tradition in our culture for visitors, friends and relatives to bombard that person with all kinds of advice on treatments and medicines. If the patient follows them, the chances are that both the ailment and the patient will leave the world simultaneously.
This reminds one of doctors and hakims, who demand payment before dispensing advice. Their fees depend on their qualifications, experience and, above all, reputation. Usually blood and urine tests and X-rays are prescribed immediately, and often unnecessarily. It is now common practice for laboratories carrying out these tests to be associated with the doctors. Very often medicines have to be purchased from specific chemists. Fees paid, tests carried out, consultancy done and medicine prescribed, all that is left is for the patient to hope that it all works.
When we started the enrichment plant at Kahuta, one of my senior colleagues, on deputation from a defence organisation, informed me that an accountant from his organisation had set up a nursing home in Rawalpindi. It also had a testing laboratory and he had hired a few doctors and was now minting money. By coincidence, one of my staff members was admitted there and I paid a visit to him. I was horrified to see how dirty the place was, with flies swarming all over the place. The next day I instructed our medical officer, Col Shamsul Hasan, to hire two big houses in F-8, some nursing staff and a few doctors to provide medical care to our staff. That was the beginning of our medical services. We then purchased a large plot of land from the CDA in G-9 for larger facilities. The task of building the hospital was entrusted to Brig Dr Riaz Ahmed Chowhan (later lieutenant general and surgeon general of the army).
The second groups of those who give expensive advice are lawyers, who are often accused of fleecing their clients on one pretext or another. Most people feel that they intentionally prolong cases and charge separately for each hearing in order to make more money. The fee depends on the individual lawyer’s reputation about winning cases and about having the “necessary connections.” Most senior lawyers hire junior lawyers or have interns to prepare the cases with all the proper references and criminal codes, while they examine the completed case and then argue it in court. If they lose the case, the client is encouraged and given hope that it will be won upon appeal. The client has no option but to go along, as by now he is in their firm grip. All that is left for him to do is put his faith in the Almighty and the judge. We all know that, as far as the fee is concerned, it is never according to the law–if there is such a thing. It usually comes in two parts–the official small amount and the larger amount under the table with no receipt. Recently, many scandals about “famous” lawyers have been reported. I personally know of a famous lawyer who asked one of my acquaintances, in my presence, to pay Rs2 million officially and Rs3 million unofficially into his London account. Fortunately for my acquaintance, an upright lawyer took his case and accepted Rs1 million only after he won the case for his client. The recent scandals concerning the Bank of Punjab and Haris Steel Mills have been an eye-opener to many.
Another category of people without scruples about lying or false promises (this time without charging fees) is that of politicians and national leaders. One is at a loss to understand how they manage to lie and cheat so blatantly and still manage to have a following. While doctors, pirs and lawyers do manage to hold out some hope for their patients and clients, political leaders have no such saving grace. Their policies often push the poor into committing suicide, as we can read in the papers every day, and all this when a democratic government is supposed to be the panacea for all evils. The decisions they take lack all consideration for the poor and give no consolation at all.
Allah Almighty has warned: “Every nation has its term and when its term comes, they cannot put it off an hour, nor yet advance it.” (7:34.) “Think not that Allah does not heed the deeds of the wrongdoers. He but gives them respite against a day when their eyes will fixedly stare in horror.” (14:42.) “Do the people of the towns feel secure against the coming of Our wrath by night while they are asleep, or else do they feel secure against its coming in broad daylight while they are playing (carefree); do they feel secure against the plan (chastisement) of Allah? But no one can feel secure from the plan (wrath) of Allah, except those doomed to ruin.” (7:97-99.) The worst “benefactors” are the World Bank and the IMF. Whoever accepts their advice gets choked with debts and becomes their slave forever.
I would like to stress here that I do not want to create the impression that all doctors, lawyers and politicians are cheats, deceitful, liars and blood-suckers. I personally know many fine, honest, competent and God-fearing ones who help the needy in all possible ways. Their noble deeds have gone a long way in securing the survival of the country. I am grateful to the many doctors, lawyers, hotel and restaurant owners and shopkeepers who have refused to receive any payment from me.
There are many human beings who do noble deeds, but the actual Dispenser is the Almighty. He has explained this in the Quran in simple terms. “When trouble touches a man, he cries unto Us (in all postures)–lying down, on his side, or sitting or standing. But when We have solved his trouble, he passes on his way as if he had never cried to Us for a trouble that had touched him. Thus do the deeds of the transgressors seem fair in their eyes.” (10:12.) No doubt, it is Allah Almighty who gives honour to whom He likes and ignominy to whom He wishes.
Dr A Q Khan columns
‘No’ to the Kakar option! by Farooq Hameed Khan
Many voices are being heard that seek General Ashfaq Parvez Kayani’s intervention ‘a la General Waheed Kakar style’ to end the current executive-judiciary confrontation. A leading anchor of a private television channel and reputed editor from the same powerful media group have called for the army’s role to save the country from sliding towards anarchy.
Another anchor of a famous television talk show, incidentally from the same media group awaits a ‘benevolent dictator’ to undertake a comprehensive cleanup of the corrupt mafias, cartels and looters of national wealth.
More surprising was the former ISPR Head’s recent write up in a leading newspaper in which he advocated that another “General Kakar act was due.”
He concluded by stating: “Another Waheed Kakar style timely act may well be in order to get the executive (to which the Army Chief is a part) to withdraw its briefs.” The aforesaid attempts in certain media quarters to lure the army into a ‘soft intervention’ are fraught with dangers. Those who are behind this move are neither well wishers of the country nor the army and may have their own axe to grind. Are they ignorant of the ramifications of inciting the army against the democratically elected public office holders? Have we not learnt our lessons from the past?
On July 17, 1993, then COAS General Waheed Kakar had ‘persuaded’ President Ghulam Ishaq Khan as well as Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif to quit their posts to end the grave political crisis and tensions between the President and Prime Minister. This political impasse had resulted in the aftermath of the judiciary’s restoration of Nawaz Sharif’s government after its dismissal by President Ghulam Ishaq under the Constitution’s infamous Article 58-2(b).
At a stage when the army is deeply involved in anti-militancy operations in FATA, any distraction from this national commitment or deviation from the military principle of ‘maintenance of aim’ could result in loss of momentum in the war against the militants. The nation is aware of the consequences, should the FATA military operations slacken and militants get the chance to regroup in the regained areas.
Moreover, Pak army remains under intense US pressure to launch the dangerous and most risky offensive into North Waziristan in the coming months. The recent flying visits of General David Petraeus, General Stanley McChrystal and the CIA Chief to Pakistan also had the North Waziristan operation high on their agenda. So the nation would least desire the army to get entangled unnecessarily into civilian complexities in these difficult times.
One can imagine the political and internal security fallouts should the unanimously elected President decide to defy the Army Chief’s ‘request’ to step down. Can the country afford a replay of the instability and turmoil of that witnessed after CJ Iftikhar Chaudhry’s historic defiance in the face of General Pervez Musharraf?
Would General Kayani allow the nation’s goodwill, respect and support, that the army earned in the post-Musharraf era, by staying away from politics, go down the drain? Is it the army’s responsibility to clear the mess created by greedy and self-serving politicians? Any form of military intervention may result in a political backlash and create a civil-military divide that would least serve the cause of national unity.
With over two years only since the last elections, why is the Army Chief being encouraged to ‘show the door’ to the top leadership? Does the nation see a dead end? It is true that the ruling coalition faces a serious crisis of governance and credibility wherein mega financial scams involving high government functionaries are the order of the day. Leading public sector setups like Pakistan Steel, Railways and PSO are in intensive care, struggling to survive in a climate of financial mismanagement and corruption.
Nothing could be worse than the 2008-09 Auditor General’s Report that has declared colossal losses due to financial irregularities or corruption to the tune of Rs 323 billion in the public sector organisations. With rising discontent, unbearable price hikes, closure of industries, and uncontrollable energy loadshedding, the common man faces severe hardships that are unprecedented in the country’s history.
For the sake of democracy, any change in the current set-up, therefore, must come from within the system through democratic and constitutional means. If the presidency is the root cause of all the nation’s sufferings, then public pressure must mount for the President’s impeachment as per the Constitution. The judiciary must also speedily decide cases about the President’s holding of dual office and his eligibility or immunity post-NRO, without further delay so as to end the current state of uncertainty vis-à-vis the President’s future.
An in-house change may remove the fire-fighting PM, who certainly disappointed the nation by failing to assert his new found powers after the 18th Amendment. The PM’s open support to a controversial ex-MNA, who had earlier resigned after admitting his fake degree in the Supreme Court, caused irreparable damage to his image. What message did the PM communicate to the young Pakistani generation?
If the PM takes pride in toeing the party line in recommending presidential pardons to convicts, crooks and cronies, it reflects an open defiance and ridicule of the judiciary. Then he must accept full responsibility for the prevailing chaos and should be accountable to the nation. If the ‘Jamshed Dasti’ type Parliament fails to cleanse its House of reportedly dozens of fake degree holders and deliver as per the peoples aspirations, it then must go. More important than the fake degrees are the principles of morality and integrity that need to be upheld at the highest level.
The ‘Waheed Kakar option’ worked well for 17 years ago. It may not be doable in today’s Pakistan in the presence of a strong and independent judiciary, and political forces that will zealously unite against any ultra-constitutional act. Let General Kayani and the army keep serving the country. Why adopt the Kakar approach when the civil society-media-judiciary combination will most hopefully deliver!
The writer is a retired Brigadier.
Email: fhkhan54@gmail.com
Another anchor of a famous television talk show, incidentally from the same media group awaits a ‘benevolent dictator’ to undertake a comprehensive cleanup of the corrupt mafias, cartels and looters of national wealth.
More surprising was the former ISPR Head’s recent write up in a leading newspaper in which he advocated that another “General Kakar act was due.”
He concluded by stating: “Another Waheed Kakar style timely act may well be in order to get the executive (to which the Army Chief is a part) to withdraw its briefs.” The aforesaid attempts in certain media quarters to lure the army into a ‘soft intervention’ are fraught with dangers. Those who are behind this move are neither well wishers of the country nor the army and may have their own axe to grind. Are they ignorant of the ramifications of inciting the army against the democratically elected public office holders? Have we not learnt our lessons from the past?
On July 17, 1993, then COAS General Waheed Kakar had ‘persuaded’ President Ghulam Ishaq Khan as well as Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif to quit their posts to end the grave political crisis and tensions between the President and Prime Minister. This political impasse had resulted in the aftermath of the judiciary’s restoration of Nawaz Sharif’s government after its dismissal by President Ghulam Ishaq under the Constitution’s infamous Article 58-2(b).
At a stage when the army is deeply involved in anti-militancy operations in FATA, any distraction from this national commitment or deviation from the military principle of ‘maintenance of aim’ could result in loss of momentum in the war against the militants. The nation is aware of the consequences, should the FATA military operations slacken and militants get the chance to regroup in the regained areas.
Moreover, Pak army remains under intense US pressure to launch the dangerous and most risky offensive into North Waziristan in the coming months. The recent flying visits of General David Petraeus, General Stanley McChrystal and the CIA Chief to Pakistan also had the North Waziristan operation high on their agenda. So the nation would least desire the army to get entangled unnecessarily into civilian complexities in these difficult times.
One can imagine the political and internal security fallouts should the unanimously elected President decide to defy the Army Chief’s ‘request’ to step down. Can the country afford a replay of the instability and turmoil of that witnessed after CJ Iftikhar Chaudhry’s historic defiance in the face of General Pervez Musharraf?
Would General Kayani allow the nation’s goodwill, respect and support, that the army earned in the post-Musharraf era, by staying away from politics, go down the drain? Is it the army’s responsibility to clear the mess created by greedy and self-serving politicians? Any form of military intervention may result in a political backlash and create a civil-military divide that would least serve the cause of national unity.
With over two years only since the last elections, why is the Army Chief being encouraged to ‘show the door’ to the top leadership? Does the nation see a dead end? It is true that the ruling coalition faces a serious crisis of governance and credibility wherein mega financial scams involving high government functionaries are the order of the day. Leading public sector setups like Pakistan Steel, Railways and PSO are in intensive care, struggling to survive in a climate of financial mismanagement and corruption.
Nothing could be worse than the 2008-09 Auditor General’s Report that has declared colossal losses due to financial irregularities or corruption to the tune of Rs 323 billion in the public sector organisations. With rising discontent, unbearable price hikes, closure of industries, and uncontrollable energy loadshedding, the common man faces severe hardships that are unprecedented in the country’s history.
For the sake of democracy, any change in the current set-up, therefore, must come from within the system through democratic and constitutional means. If the presidency is the root cause of all the nation’s sufferings, then public pressure must mount for the President’s impeachment as per the Constitution. The judiciary must also speedily decide cases about the President’s holding of dual office and his eligibility or immunity post-NRO, without further delay so as to end the current state of uncertainty vis-à-vis the President’s future.
An in-house change may remove the fire-fighting PM, who certainly disappointed the nation by failing to assert his new found powers after the 18th Amendment. The PM’s open support to a controversial ex-MNA, who had earlier resigned after admitting his fake degree in the Supreme Court, caused irreparable damage to his image. What message did the PM communicate to the young Pakistani generation?
If the PM takes pride in toeing the party line in recommending presidential pardons to convicts, crooks and cronies, it reflects an open defiance and ridicule of the judiciary. Then he must accept full responsibility for the prevailing chaos and should be accountable to the nation. If the ‘Jamshed Dasti’ type Parliament fails to cleanse its House of reportedly dozens of fake degree holders and deliver as per the peoples aspirations, it then must go. More important than the fake degrees are the principles of morality and integrity that need to be upheld at the highest level.
The ‘Waheed Kakar option’ worked well for 17 years ago. It may not be doable in today’s Pakistan in the presence of a strong and independent judiciary, and political forces that will zealously unite against any ultra-constitutional act. Let General Kayani and the army keep serving the country. Why adopt the Kakar approach when the civil society-media-judiciary combination will most hopefully deliver!
The writer is a retired Brigadier.
Email: fhkhan54@gmail.com
Pemra passes the buck to interior ministry
ISLAMABAD: The Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority (Pemra) acting Chairman Dr Abdul Jabbar on Thursday blamed the Interior Ministry for non-issuance of security clearance to Geo Super because of which the broadcasting licence was not being issued in favour of Pakistan’s first sports channel.
“It’s not Pemra but the Interior Ministry which gives security clearance before issuance of a satellite TV licence,” he said during a press conference at Pemra headquarters on Thursday giving reference of relevant rules under which such a clearance was mandatory.
He, however, did not reply that if the Interior Ministry gave the security clearance then whether or not the licence will be given to Geo Super.
Dr Jabbar also admitted that it has been conveyed to Geo Super not to broadcast from Pakistan and if it did so, action would be taken against it. On one occasion, he said Geo Super did not get the security clearance and again said that some directors of Geo Super did not get security clearance.
However, when the journalists protested his remarks, he immediately said that the directors of Geo Super were more patriotic than anyone else. When repeatedly asked as to who was to issue the security clearance to Geo Super, the acting chairman said it was the Interior Ministry.
In the beginning of his press conference, he said Pemra had not closed down Geo Super but had only told them not to telecast from Pakistan as its lending rights were from Dubai and its licence did not cover Pakistan.
At one point, the Pemra acting chairman said that the regulatory authority had not closed down any channel in Pakistan, but in the same breath he stated that if Geo Super telecasts its programmes from Pakistan, action would be taken against it.
He said Geo Super did not have a licence for telecasting from Pakistan, so Pemra has no powers to close it down. He claimed that Pemra is a regulatory body and its function was to regulate the TV channels. “We gave the licence for 15 years and a second licence for landing rights for which there are rules and regulations,” he added.
Dr Abdul Jabbar said Pemra has issued licences to 85 channels and 11 companies have landing rights. “It is necessary that a foreign company should have an agreement with a local company for availing the landing rights,” he said.
He claimed that the Geo Super made an agreement with a company which did not get security clearance. He also claimed that Geo News was giving false news and Pemra will issue legal notice to the channel.
When a journalist asked as to what action Pemra had taken against the cable operators who showed immoral movies, he claimed that notices were issued to them. He said the signals of Geo Super were coming via satellite but were not being uplinked.
He said that Pemra only provided facility of uplinking temporarily on an event basis. “We have asked Geo Super to tell us what they want to show. Till a decision is taken on their application, we cannot provide them the facility of uplinking as they have a licence which is for outside Pakistan,” he said.
He said Geo Super had sent an application for a satellite TV in 2009 but Pemra issues a licence only after security clearance, but so far there is no security clearance about the channel. “We will not give licence to Geo Super till security clearance was there and that was the reason why we asked them to run the channel from outside Pakistan, not from within Pakistan,” he said.
He said Pemra’s Balochistan Regional Manager Gul Muhammad Kakar was not an employee of Pemra as he was working on deputation, so he was repatriated. “He was defaming Pemra,” he said. When asked what the Geo group has to do now, he said, “Geo is giving false news and it should give correct news.”
When asked as to how could he being a government employee call Geo a security risk while Pemra itself was indulging in information terrorism, the acting chairman replied that Pemra was non-partisan and added that he had not declared Geo as a security risk but had talked only about security clearance.
He did not reply to a question when asked as to why the directives of the superior judiciary were not implemented. He also did not reply to the question that if Geo Super was showing the World Cup matches illegally, then why it was allowed to do so.
The Presidency’s henchman Dr Jabbar’s press conference on Pakistan’s only sports channel – Geo Super – was full of repeated contradictions, white lies and baseless claims simply to mislead and befool the people and to hoodwink the apex court which is scheduled to hear the Geo Super case on Friday.
Dr Jabbar, who is executive member of Pemra, and used to request journalists to use the word ‘Pemra chairman’ for him, started his press conference with the words that Geo News is airing wrong propaganda that Pemra or the government had put the Geo Super off-air. However, later in his 30-minute press conference he denied his own words almost five to six times, saying that Pemra had written a letter to Geo Super asking it to not to uplink its signal from Pakistan and that Geo Super only had landing rights but could not uplink its signals from Pakistan.
At one point, Dr Jabbar claimed that neither he nor the government was against Geo, but during the same press conference, he repeatedly admitted that Pemra had not granted a broadcasting licence to Geo Super. He said at so many points during the press conference that the government did not give mandatory security clearance to Geo Super and that is why this sports channel could not be given the broadcasting licence.
When he was confronted that if Geo Super was a security risk, why the government was allowing the Geo News, Geo Entertainment and Aag TV which all are run by the Geo TV Network, Dr Jabbar opted not to reply.
At one point Dr Jabbar admitted that the sports channel is liked by viewers but in the next instance when he was asked whether Geo Super will be given the licence, he replied that Pemra is not giving any more satellite TV licences.
After saying that people like the sports channel, he even said that while granting the licence Pemra had to see whether there is demand of a channel or not. Totally confused replies of Dr Jabbar mixed up the issues so badly that nothing was clear to anyone.
If one collect the above statements of Dr Jabbar given in this paragraph, it could be read as; “People like the sports channel. Pemra has to see whether there is demand of a channel or not and even if there is a demand for the sports channel; Pemra will not give the licence to Geo Super.”
While Dr Jabbar acknowledged the importance of sports channels in Pakistan and admitted that Geo Super was the only Pakistani sports channel, he said at seven different occasions that Geo Super will not be allowed to uplink its signal from Pakistan.
Where Dr Jabbar swiftly responded to the questions regarding Geo Super, he kept mysterious silence when he was asked that it is being alleged that a channel, ‘Sohni Dharti’ is his channel which he was running in the name some of his friends.
He also did not reply that the licence fee of an entertainment channel is Rs5 million while he (Dr Jabbar) granted the licence of channel ‘Sohni Dharti’ for only half a million rupees by showing it as an “agricultural channel”.
He also did not reply that this channel was only airing entertainment programmes whereas it is registered as an agricultural channel. He also did not reply to the question that almost in the entire country this channel was placed on Number 5 in cable networks by pressuring the operators for the same purpose.
He also did not reply that he removed his Pemra Faisalabad officer who did not obey his illegal orders to pressurise the cable operators to place Sohni Dharti on initial numbers on cable network.
“It’s not Pemra but the Interior Ministry which gives security clearance before issuance of a satellite TV licence,” he said during a press conference at Pemra headquarters on Thursday giving reference of relevant rules under which such a clearance was mandatory.
He, however, did not reply that if the Interior Ministry gave the security clearance then whether or not the licence will be given to Geo Super.
Dr Jabbar also admitted that it has been conveyed to Geo Super not to broadcast from Pakistan and if it did so, action would be taken against it. On one occasion, he said Geo Super did not get the security clearance and again said that some directors of Geo Super did not get security clearance.
However, when the journalists protested his remarks, he immediately said that the directors of Geo Super were more patriotic than anyone else. When repeatedly asked as to who was to issue the security clearance to Geo Super, the acting chairman said it was the Interior Ministry.
In the beginning of his press conference, he said Pemra had not closed down Geo Super but had only told them not to telecast from Pakistan as its lending rights were from Dubai and its licence did not cover Pakistan.
At one point, the Pemra acting chairman said that the regulatory authority had not closed down any channel in Pakistan, but in the same breath he stated that if Geo Super telecasts its programmes from Pakistan, action would be taken against it.
He said Geo Super did not have a licence for telecasting from Pakistan, so Pemra has no powers to close it down. He claimed that Pemra is a regulatory body and its function was to regulate the TV channels. “We gave the licence for 15 years and a second licence for landing rights for which there are rules and regulations,” he added.
Dr Abdul Jabbar said Pemra has issued licences to 85 channels and 11 companies have landing rights. “It is necessary that a foreign company should have an agreement with a local company for availing the landing rights,” he said.
He claimed that the Geo Super made an agreement with a company which did not get security clearance. He also claimed that Geo News was giving false news and Pemra will issue legal notice to the channel.
When a journalist asked as to what action Pemra had taken against the cable operators who showed immoral movies, he claimed that notices were issued to them. He said the signals of Geo Super were coming via satellite but were not being uplinked.
He said that Pemra only provided facility of uplinking temporarily on an event basis. “We have asked Geo Super to tell us what they want to show. Till a decision is taken on their application, we cannot provide them the facility of uplinking as they have a licence which is for outside Pakistan,” he said.
He said Geo Super had sent an application for a satellite TV in 2009 but Pemra issues a licence only after security clearance, but so far there is no security clearance about the channel. “We will not give licence to Geo Super till security clearance was there and that was the reason why we asked them to run the channel from outside Pakistan, not from within Pakistan,” he said.
He said Pemra’s Balochistan Regional Manager Gul Muhammad Kakar was not an employee of Pemra as he was working on deputation, so he was repatriated. “He was defaming Pemra,” he said. When asked what the Geo group has to do now, he said, “Geo is giving false news and it should give correct news.”
When asked as to how could he being a government employee call Geo a security risk while Pemra itself was indulging in information terrorism, the acting chairman replied that Pemra was non-partisan and added that he had not declared Geo as a security risk but had talked only about security clearance.
He did not reply to a question when asked as to why the directives of the superior judiciary were not implemented. He also did not reply to the question that if Geo Super was showing the World Cup matches illegally, then why it was allowed to do so.
The Presidency’s henchman Dr Jabbar’s press conference on Pakistan’s only sports channel – Geo Super – was full of repeated contradictions, white lies and baseless claims simply to mislead and befool the people and to hoodwink the apex court which is scheduled to hear the Geo Super case on Friday.
Dr Jabbar, who is executive member of Pemra, and used to request journalists to use the word ‘Pemra chairman’ for him, started his press conference with the words that Geo News is airing wrong propaganda that Pemra or the government had put the Geo Super off-air. However, later in his 30-minute press conference he denied his own words almost five to six times, saying that Pemra had written a letter to Geo Super asking it to not to uplink its signal from Pakistan and that Geo Super only had landing rights but could not uplink its signals from Pakistan.
At one point, Dr Jabbar claimed that neither he nor the government was against Geo, but during the same press conference, he repeatedly admitted that Pemra had not granted a broadcasting licence to Geo Super. He said at so many points during the press conference that the government did not give mandatory security clearance to Geo Super and that is why this sports channel could not be given the broadcasting licence.
When he was confronted that if Geo Super was a security risk, why the government was allowing the Geo News, Geo Entertainment and Aag TV which all are run by the Geo TV Network, Dr Jabbar opted not to reply.
At one point Dr Jabbar admitted that the sports channel is liked by viewers but in the next instance when he was asked whether Geo Super will be given the licence, he replied that Pemra is not giving any more satellite TV licences.
After saying that people like the sports channel, he even said that while granting the licence Pemra had to see whether there is demand of a channel or not. Totally confused replies of Dr Jabbar mixed up the issues so badly that nothing was clear to anyone.
If one collect the above statements of Dr Jabbar given in this paragraph, it could be read as; “People like the sports channel. Pemra has to see whether there is demand of a channel or not and even if there is a demand for the sports channel; Pemra will not give the licence to Geo Super.”
While Dr Jabbar acknowledged the importance of sports channels in Pakistan and admitted that Geo Super was the only Pakistani sports channel, he said at seven different occasions that Geo Super will not be allowed to uplink its signal from Pakistan.
Where Dr Jabbar swiftly responded to the questions regarding Geo Super, he kept mysterious silence when he was asked that it is being alleged that a channel, ‘Sohni Dharti’ is his channel which he was running in the name some of his friends.
He also did not reply that the licence fee of an entertainment channel is Rs5 million while he (Dr Jabbar) granted the licence of channel ‘Sohni Dharti’ for only half a million rupees by showing it as an “agricultural channel”.
He also did not reply that this channel was only airing entertainment programmes whereas it is registered as an agricultural channel. He also did not reply to the question that almost in the entire country this channel was placed on Number 5 in cable networks by pressuring the operators for the same purpose.
He also did not reply that he removed his Pemra Faisalabad officer who did not obey his illegal orders to pressurise the cable operators to place Sohni Dharti on initial numbers on cable network.
EAC for taxing all incomes
ISLAMABAD – The Economic Advisory Council (EAC) on Thursday came up with a suggestion to tax all incomes, irrespective of the source of origin, including agriculture and service sector, in the coming budget 2011-12.
Federal Minister for Finance and Revenue Abdul Hafeez Sheikh chaired the meeting of the EAC that overviewed the economic situation of the country, including the performance of key sectors of the economy, and also discussed the proposals for the upcoming budget for the fiscal year 2011-12.
The EAC meeting also agreed that the Austerity Plan and the Governance Plan, already approved by the EAC and the Cabinet, should be implemented in letter and spirit. Meanwhile, it was also agreed that the EAC will interact with all the stakeholders for the budget-making process.
The EAC also discussed the important proposals, including giving impetus to the Public Sector Enterprise (PSE) reforms through creation of a holding company of a transitional nature to undertake restructuring of the eight existing PSEs and also include several other large PSEs in its ambit. The holding company will be led by a credible Board of Directors.
The Federal Board of Revenue (FBR) gave a detailed presentation on the revenue collection performance for the first nine months (July-March) of the ongoing financial year 2010-11, saying it collected Rs 1012 billion in the period in question.
Sources were of the view that some EAC members showed concerns over the performance of the Tax Department during the period in question of the ongoing fiscal year, and they feared that the FBR might not be able to achieve the revenue collection target of Rs 1,604 billion by June 30.
However, the FBR highlighted the recent measures undertaken to achieve the revenue target. The presentation also outlined an enforcement plan, risk-based audit, broadening of the tax base and successful implementation of the fully-automated refund system. The FBR hoped that with these measures, they could achieve the annual tax collection target of Rs 1,604 billion.
The Planning Commission presented the government’s new growth strategy based on improving productivity, governance and market reforms, urban management, connectivity and youth empowerment. The EAC agreed to reform the Planning Commission for strengthening its role in the planning process. It was also decided that the Planning Commission would draw out a plan to operationalise the conceptual framework of growth strategy for the EAC and its subsequent implementation by the government.
Meanwhile, the EAC also set up working groups to formulate recommendations in key areas like governance, energy, trade, taxation, capital markets, banking and agriculture among others.
The meeting was attended by Dr Hafiz A Pasha, Convener EAC, Shaukat Tarin, former finance minister, the Deputy Chairman Planning Commission, the Minister of State for Finance and Economic Affairs, the Governor State Bank of Pakistan, senior officials and members of the EAC, including Dr Ijaz Nabi, Jahangir Khan Tarin, Salim Raza, Farooq Rahmatullah, Ali Habib, Nasim Beg, Shahnaz Wazir Ali, Farid Rehman, Hassan Ali Chaniho and Arshad Zuberi.
Federal Minister for Finance and Revenue Abdul Hafeez Sheikh chaired the meeting of the EAC that overviewed the economic situation of the country, including the performance of key sectors of the economy, and also discussed the proposals for the upcoming budget for the fiscal year 2011-12.
The EAC meeting also agreed that the Austerity Plan and the Governance Plan, already approved by the EAC and the Cabinet, should be implemented in letter and spirit. Meanwhile, it was also agreed that the EAC will interact with all the stakeholders for the budget-making process.
The EAC also discussed the important proposals, including giving impetus to the Public Sector Enterprise (PSE) reforms through creation of a holding company of a transitional nature to undertake restructuring of the eight existing PSEs and also include several other large PSEs in its ambit. The holding company will be led by a credible Board of Directors.
The Federal Board of Revenue (FBR) gave a detailed presentation on the revenue collection performance for the first nine months (July-March) of the ongoing financial year 2010-11, saying it collected Rs 1012 billion in the period in question.
Sources were of the view that some EAC members showed concerns over the performance of the Tax Department during the period in question of the ongoing fiscal year, and they feared that the FBR might not be able to achieve the revenue collection target of Rs 1,604 billion by June 30.
However, the FBR highlighted the recent measures undertaken to achieve the revenue target. The presentation also outlined an enforcement plan, risk-based audit, broadening of the tax base and successful implementation of the fully-automated refund system. The FBR hoped that with these measures, they could achieve the annual tax collection target of Rs 1,604 billion.
The Planning Commission presented the government’s new growth strategy based on improving productivity, governance and market reforms, urban management, connectivity and youth empowerment. The EAC agreed to reform the Planning Commission for strengthening its role in the planning process. It was also decided that the Planning Commission would draw out a plan to operationalise the conceptual framework of growth strategy for the EAC and its subsequent implementation by the government.
Meanwhile, the EAC also set up working groups to formulate recommendations in key areas like governance, energy, trade, taxation, capital markets, banking and agriculture among others.
The meeting was attended by Dr Hafiz A Pasha, Convener EAC, Shaukat Tarin, former finance minister, the Deputy Chairman Planning Commission, the Minister of State for Finance and Economic Affairs, the Governor State Bank of Pakistan, senior officials and members of the EAC, including Dr Ijaz Nabi, Jahangir Khan Tarin, Salim Raza, Farooq Rahmatullah, Ali Habib, Nasim Beg, Shahnaz Wazir Ali, Farid Rehman, Hassan Ali Chaniho and Arshad Zuberi.
Inflation outlook disheartening
KARACHI – The State Bank of Pakistan (SBP) has said that Pakistan’s economy will continue to grow at a steady pace, facing a number of domestic and external challenges in the current fiscal year 2010-11.
The State Bank of Pakistan published its report for the second quarter of FY11 on Friday.
The report found the revenue targets set under the tax reforms for the prevalent financial years are ambitious, warning that the planned official inflows from the IMF and other international financial institutions could be affected in case the government fails to implement the fiscal austerity measures effectively. “With fiscal pressures and below-target external funding, domestic financing pressures may increase; this will either crowd out the private sector further or result in unwelcome borrowing from SBP, which in turn may reverse some of the positive steps taken to date to address the country’s macroeconomic problems,” it said. The SBP has stuck to its earlier projection of Gross Domestic Product growth of 2-3pc for the current fiscal year (FY11), accounting for the catastrophic floods in Aug 2010. However, looking at inflation, the report said, “Although projections for FY11 have eased marginally to 14.5-15.5pc but it seems that inflationary expectations are becoming engrained”.
Despite expected decent growth in the agriculture sector, the SBP report highlighted three key risks in the present domestic and global economic environment. Firstly, it noted that Pakistan’s talks with the IMF have been difficult primarily because of socio-political resistance to paying taxes. Hence, it is not surprising that the programme is suspended, and even some of the recent tax measures may be viewed as second-best, being one-off in nature.
Secondly, due to the risk-averse behaviour of commercial banks it is expected that banks would channel increasing volumes of credit to the government, crowding out the private sector further because of a high fiscal deficit and blockages in external sector. Thirdly, if political uncertainty remains and spreads further in the Middle East/ North Africa (MENA) region, oil prices could increase even more sharply than the recent past. Although this will hurt the global economy quite severely, the impact on Pakistan could be disproportionately larger.
Finally, the uncertain investment horizon and an adverse law & order situation – related to the fight against extremism – will also strongly influence this outlook.
The report stated, “Looking ahead, perhaps measures like the withdrawal of exemptions from GST signal a more inclusive and aggressive intent for the FY12 Budget – recent FBR efforts to identify wealthy non-payers is a good sign in this regard”.
“Although we do not have formal data for the period Jan-Mar 2011, a preliminary assessment suggests that the external sector will remain comfortable, the report said adding that we remain cautiously optimistic about progress on the fiscal side, as shown by the recent fiscal measures to reduce the gap by Rs210 billion this fiscal year. On the banking side, the increase in textile lending may slow down as international cotton prices fall from their recent peak, and seasonal demand for credit eases.
“Despite the staggering humanitarian cost of the August 2010 floods, there is a possible upside for the agriculture sector. Other than better-than-expected wheat production this year, we are also optimistic about cotton, sugarcane and rice in FY12, it said.
In fact, recent weather conditions may help – the unexpectedly large snowfall this winter will help our kharif crops when the snow melts, while cotton could get a boost with the shift to BT cotton. Although targets for the next crop have not been firmed up yet, there is a view that the target for FY12 could be as high as 17.0 million bales, against FY11’s target of 14.5 million bales and actual output of 11.7 million bales. The possible upside to GDP in FY12 – if this were to happen – could be significant, it added.
The government appears to be working with key stakeholders (Pakistan’s political leadership) to implement policies, which may not get the necessary support from their financial and political constituencies. However, we remain optimistic that multi-partisan efforts will resolve this stubborn economic impediment. We hope that despite these fiscal challenges, the government continues to meet its commitment (to SBP) to stay below its end-September 2010 level of borrowing from the central bank, it opined.
“There are only three avenues that Pakistan can take to meet deficit targets – exceptional steps to increase fiscal revenues; reforming loss-making PSEs; and eliminating end-user subsidies. On the revenues side, although RGST has become the focal point, addressing revenue leakages and glaring exemptions (eg agriculture and ineffective taxation of properties) needs serious attention,” it suggested.
The report disclosed that the external sector is comfortable. During Jul-Feb FY11, Pakistan’s current account deficit was only $98.0 million, against $3,027 million in the corresponding period in FY10.
Strong dollar-denominated export growth of 20.3 percent (on the back of high prices of textiles), sluggish manufacturing and consumer demand (reflected in the 12.7 percent growth in imports), and strong remittances (up 18 percent over FY10); are primarily responsible for the improvement.
“Having said this, net foreign inflows in the financial account have declined sharply, as the stalled IMF programme has stopped inflows from other IFIs and bilateral donors. Nevertheless, the improvement in the current account has pushed Pakistan’s foreign reserves to record highs, while the Pak rupee remains stable,” it said.
The State Bank of Pakistan published its report for the second quarter of FY11 on Friday.
The report found the revenue targets set under the tax reforms for the prevalent financial years are ambitious, warning that the planned official inflows from the IMF and other international financial institutions could be affected in case the government fails to implement the fiscal austerity measures effectively. “With fiscal pressures and below-target external funding, domestic financing pressures may increase; this will either crowd out the private sector further or result in unwelcome borrowing from SBP, which in turn may reverse some of the positive steps taken to date to address the country’s macroeconomic problems,” it said. The SBP has stuck to its earlier projection of Gross Domestic Product growth of 2-3pc for the current fiscal year (FY11), accounting for the catastrophic floods in Aug 2010. However, looking at inflation, the report said, “Although projections for FY11 have eased marginally to 14.5-15.5pc but it seems that inflationary expectations are becoming engrained”.
Despite expected decent growth in the agriculture sector, the SBP report highlighted three key risks in the present domestic and global economic environment. Firstly, it noted that Pakistan’s talks with the IMF have been difficult primarily because of socio-political resistance to paying taxes. Hence, it is not surprising that the programme is suspended, and even some of the recent tax measures may be viewed as second-best, being one-off in nature.
Secondly, due to the risk-averse behaviour of commercial banks it is expected that banks would channel increasing volumes of credit to the government, crowding out the private sector further because of a high fiscal deficit and blockages in external sector. Thirdly, if political uncertainty remains and spreads further in the Middle East/ North Africa (MENA) region, oil prices could increase even more sharply than the recent past. Although this will hurt the global economy quite severely, the impact on Pakistan could be disproportionately larger.
Finally, the uncertain investment horizon and an adverse law & order situation – related to the fight against extremism – will also strongly influence this outlook.
The report stated, “Looking ahead, perhaps measures like the withdrawal of exemptions from GST signal a more inclusive and aggressive intent for the FY12 Budget – recent FBR efforts to identify wealthy non-payers is a good sign in this regard”.
“Although we do not have formal data for the period Jan-Mar 2011, a preliminary assessment suggests that the external sector will remain comfortable, the report said adding that we remain cautiously optimistic about progress on the fiscal side, as shown by the recent fiscal measures to reduce the gap by Rs210 billion this fiscal year. On the banking side, the increase in textile lending may slow down as international cotton prices fall from their recent peak, and seasonal demand for credit eases.
“Despite the staggering humanitarian cost of the August 2010 floods, there is a possible upside for the agriculture sector. Other than better-than-expected wheat production this year, we are also optimistic about cotton, sugarcane and rice in FY12, it said.
In fact, recent weather conditions may help – the unexpectedly large snowfall this winter will help our kharif crops when the snow melts, while cotton could get a boost with the shift to BT cotton. Although targets for the next crop have not been firmed up yet, there is a view that the target for FY12 could be as high as 17.0 million bales, against FY11’s target of 14.5 million bales and actual output of 11.7 million bales. The possible upside to GDP in FY12 – if this were to happen – could be significant, it added.
The government appears to be working with key stakeholders (Pakistan’s political leadership) to implement policies, which may not get the necessary support from their financial and political constituencies. However, we remain optimistic that multi-partisan efforts will resolve this stubborn economic impediment. We hope that despite these fiscal challenges, the government continues to meet its commitment (to SBP) to stay below its end-September 2010 level of borrowing from the central bank, it opined.
“There are only three avenues that Pakistan can take to meet deficit targets – exceptional steps to increase fiscal revenues; reforming loss-making PSEs; and eliminating end-user subsidies. On the revenues side, although RGST has become the focal point, addressing revenue leakages and glaring exemptions (eg agriculture and ineffective taxation of properties) needs serious attention,” it suggested.
The report disclosed that the external sector is comfortable. During Jul-Feb FY11, Pakistan’s current account deficit was only $98.0 million, against $3,027 million in the corresponding period in FY10.
Strong dollar-denominated export growth of 20.3 percent (on the back of high prices of textiles), sluggish manufacturing and consumer demand (reflected in the 12.7 percent growth in imports), and strong remittances (up 18 percent over FY10); are primarily responsible for the improvement.
“Having said this, net foreign inflows in the financial account have declined sharply, as the stalled IMF programme has stopped inflows from other IFIs and bilateral donors. Nevertheless, the improvement in the current account has pushed Pakistan’s foreign reserves to record highs, while the Pak rupee remains stable,” it said.
Devolution Fundamentalists Vs HEC Chamchaas By Mosharraf Zaidi
The debate about the status of the Higher Education Commission (HEC) in a post-18th Amendment scenario is being presented in interesting ways. One version of the debate is that this fight pits those who favour a centralised Pakistani state, against a band of do-good federalist champions – whose only interest is the strengthening of provinces and their autonomy. This is the version that a lot of well-intentioned people believe to be true. Unfortunately, the graveyards of the world are full of good intentions.
Those who are presenting the HEC debate as a battle between centralists and federalists, are essentially (either knowingly, or unwittingly) behaving like devolution fundamentalists. Like all other kinds of fundamentalism, devolution fundamentalism is a way of seeing things, in this case, a post-18th Amendment Pakistan, in starkly black and white terms. This kind of essentialism requires advocates of a federal structure, to be advocates of provincial autonomy, which then requires those advocates to be advocates of stripping away central agency – or the centre’s right to legislate, regulate and navigate public policy – in any area deemed to be worthy of being devolved.
In the essentialist world view of the devolution fundamentalist, the reason the HEC must go is because it invades and occupies the province’s right to oversee the higher education sector. But the logical corollary of this is that the HEC’s existence is, by very design, an attack on provincial space. Of course, that’s not really the function of the HEC.
The HEC was designed in 2002, by the Steering Committee on Higher Education (SCHE) which counted among its members, the current PPP Finance Minister Abdul Hafeez Shaikh (disclosure: I was also a key staff member for the SCHE). There were three key motivations behind higher education reform at the time. The first was to increase university enrollment which was, even by the highest estimates, no more than 280,000 at the time. The second was to improve the quality of university education through standardisation and quality assurance. The third was to ensure better governance and management of universities.
All three of these objectives required a dramatically improved financial allocation for university education, and right from its inception the HEC successfully lobbied for and achieved a quantum shift in higher education funding. From that point forward, the HEC represents one of the most important public policy successes in recent memory. But the HEC is far from perfect.
Even at its inception, there were debates about the correct balance within higher education. Dr Atta ur Rehman’s science and technology centric approach ended up being the primary focus of reform. This was countered by the approach favoured by other members of the SCHE who sought a greater role for humanities and arts in Pakistani universities. That debate is an important one that continues to this day.
Other entanglements and debates also ensued. Was it really worth the investment to have a tenure-track approach to teacher employment and retention, whilst not doing anything to change the permanent job status afforded to even lecturers at the BPS-17 level? Was buying accelerators for physics labs worth the investment, when many teachers required basic skills enhancement? These were debates worth having. The HEC may have been wrong about all of them, but they were debates that were relevant to higher education financing, regulation and quality assurance.
Today, in determining whether the HEC should or should not be retained as a regulatory body for higher education, the primary arguments for and against seem to be anything but relevant – either to higher education, or to the cause of a functioning federal state in Pakistan.
The other version of the HEC debate we have heard has been as thoughtless and politically poisonous as the devolution fundamentalists’ version has been essentialist. Raza Rabbani is as close as it gets to being a modern day Pakistani hero. The 18th Amendment may now be seen as an effort to assert Pakistani federalism, but it also deepened executive, legislative and judicial control over the country, it effectively removed the fingerprints of military autocrats from the constitution and achieved a rare and lasting sense of legislative achievement by a political class that never gets credit for the good, and always gets pinned with blame for the bad. Rabbani was and remains the instrumental clog that enabled the 18th Amendment to be passed.
So the version of the debate, as framed by HEC defenders, is as ridiculous as the first. Rabbani is not a partisan PPP hack, jealous and scared of the HEC’s ability to identify fake degrees. The HEC is not a flawless organisation whose integrity and achievements are beyond reproach. This is not a battle between those who want education and prosperity in the country versus those who want feudal raj.
Those who are making such claims or implying that such a divide exists, are the opposite of devolution fundamentalists. They may be acting out of innocent concern for higher education, but they end up seeming to be HEC chamchaas.
Pakistan doesn’t need any devolution fundamentalists, or HEC chamchaas. The truth is that a lot of what the HEC does is legally still the domain of the federal government or the central agency to which the government has delegated authority – in the HEC’s case this has been done statutorily through the HEC Ordinance 2002. Quality assurance and standardisation remain important. So too does the ability to shut down universities if they are not providing the minimum benchmarked quality of education. These are legitimate post-18th Amendment federal functions.
The big question is financing. Here, the provinces have a reasonable, but potentially dangerous case. Senator Rabbani would do well to avoid the path of the devolution fundamentalist, by ensuring that his proposed solutions address reasonable concerns without exposing universities, students, and teachers to very high and unnecessary risks.
The problem is simple. Instead of routing money through the HEC, provinces want the money for universities in their jurisdiction to flow through the province. This is a legitimate demand. But the risk here is off the charts. Not only do provinces not have adequate capacity. There are more urgent worries. What if a given province decides to take the money and spend it on handouts for the poor, under the Benazir Income Support Programme? Or take the money and build a new ring road around a big city? Or a new underpass? Or new bullet proof vests for its policemen?
A fiscally autonomous province should be free to make those decisions. But a sane and responsible provincial government would not make them at the expense of university financing. An inter-provincial mechanism could solve this problem. So too could statutory provincial ring-fencing of higher education budgets – both recurring and development. There is a solution here somewhere, if we’re willing to find it.
A federal HEC that ensures quality, and enforces standards is not inconceivable. A provincial financing mechanism for universities that ensures adequate and sustained levels of funding is also not inconceivable. We need not be devolution fundamentalists or HEC chamchaas to achieve all this.
Those who are presenting the HEC debate as a battle between centralists and federalists, are essentially (either knowingly, or unwittingly) behaving like devolution fundamentalists. Like all other kinds of fundamentalism, devolution fundamentalism is a way of seeing things, in this case, a post-18th Amendment Pakistan, in starkly black and white terms. This kind of essentialism requires advocates of a federal structure, to be advocates of provincial autonomy, which then requires those advocates to be advocates of stripping away central agency – or the centre’s right to legislate, regulate and navigate public policy – in any area deemed to be worthy of being devolved.
In the essentialist world view of the devolution fundamentalist, the reason the HEC must go is because it invades and occupies the province’s right to oversee the higher education sector. But the logical corollary of this is that the HEC’s existence is, by very design, an attack on provincial space. Of course, that’s not really the function of the HEC.
The HEC was designed in 2002, by the Steering Committee on Higher Education (SCHE) which counted among its members, the current PPP Finance Minister Abdul Hafeez Shaikh (disclosure: I was also a key staff member for the SCHE). There were three key motivations behind higher education reform at the time. The first was to increase university enrollment which was, even by the highest estimates, no more than 280,000 at the time. The second was to improve the quality of university education through standardisation and quality assurance. The third was to ensure better governance and management of universities.
All three of these objectives required a dramatically improved financial allocation for university education, and right from its inception the HEC successfully lobbied for and achieved a quantum shift in higher education funding. From that point forward, the HEC represents one of the most important public policy successes in recent memory. But the HEC is far from perfect.
Even at its inception, there were debates about the correct balance within higher education. Dr Atta ur Rehman’s science and technology centric approach ended up being the primary focus of reform. This was countered by the approach favoured by other members of the SCHE who sought a greater role for humanities and arts in Pakistani universities. That debate is an important one that continues to this day.
Other entanglements and debates also ensued. Was it really worth the investment to have a tenure-track approach to teacher employment and retention, whilst not doing anything to change the permanent job status afforded to even lecturers at the BPS-17 level? Was buying accelerators for physics labs worth the investment, when many teachers required basic skills enhancement? These were debates worth having. The HEC may have been wrong about all of them, but they were debates that were relevant to higher education financing, regulation and quality assurance.
Today, in determining whether the HEC should or should not be retained as a regulatory body for higher education, the primary arguments for and against seem to be anything but relevant – either to higher education, or to the cause of a functioning federal state in Pakistan.
The other version of the HEC debate we have heard has been as thoughtless and politically poisonous as the devolution fundamentalists’ version has been essentialist. Raza Rabbani is as close as it gets to being a modern day Pakistani hero. The 18th Amendment may now be seen as an effort to assert Pakistani federalism, but it also deepened executive, legislative and judicial control over the country, it effectively removed the fingerprints of military autocrats from the constitution and achieved a rare and lasting sense of legislative achievement by a political class that never gets credit for the good, and always gets pinned with blame for the bad. Rabbani was and remains the instrumental clog that enabled the 18th Amendment to be passed.
So the version of the debate, as framed by HEC defenders, is as ridiculous as the first. Rabbani is not a partisan PPP hack, jealous and scared of the HEC’s ability to identify fake degrees. The HEC is not a flawless organisation whose integrity and achievements are beyond reproach. This is not a battle between those who want education and prosperity in the country versus those who want feudal raj.
Those who are making such claims or implying that such a divide exists, are the opposite of devolution fundamentalists. They may be acting out of innocent concern for higher education, but they end up seeming to be HEC chamchaas.
Pakistan doesn’t need any devolution fundamentalists, or HEC chamchaas. The truth is that a lot of what the HEC does is legally still the domain of the federal government or the central agency to which the government has delegated authority – in the HEC’s case this has been done statutorily through the HEC Ordinance 2002. Quality assurance and standardisation remain important. So too does the ability to shut down universities if they are not providing the minimum benchmarked quality of education. These are legitimate post-18th Amendment federal functions.
The big question is financing. Here, the provinces have a reasonable, but potentially dangerous case. Senator Rabbani would do well to avoid the path of the devolution fundamentalist, by ensuring that his proposed solutions address reasonable concerns without exposing universities, students, and teachers to very high and unnecessary risks.
The problem is simple. Instead of routing money through the HEC, provinces want the money for universities in their jurisdiction to flow through the province. This is a legitimate demand. But the risk here is off the charts. Not only do provinces not have adequate capacity. There are more urgent worries. What if a given province decides to take the money and spend it on handouts for the poor, under the Benazir Income Support Programme? Or take the money and build a new ring road around a big city? Or a new underpass? Or new bullet proof vests for its policemen?
A fiscally autonomous province should be free to make those decisions. But a sane and responsible provincial government would not make them at the expense of university financing. An inter-provincial mechanism could solve this problem. So too could statutory provincial ring-fencing of higher education budgets – both recurring and development. There is a solution here somewhere, if we’re willing to find it.
A federal HEC that ensures quality, and enforces standards is not inconceivable. A provincial financing mechanism for universities that ensures adequate and sustained levels of funding is also not inconceivable. We need not be devolution fundamentalists or HEC chamchaas to achieve all this.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)