The News, April 18, 2005
Water disputes in South Asia
Imtiaz Alam
The writer is the Editor Current Affairs of The News.
If there is any single-most important issue that mars bilateral relations among the countries of South Asia, it is water. The issues of cross-border water distribution, utilisation, management and giant irrigation and hydroelectric power projects affecting the upper and lower riparian countries are gradually taking centre stage in defining interstate relations as water scarcity increases and both drought and floods make life too often miserable.
Thanks to its location, size and borders with other South Asian countries, India, as an upper and lower riparian territory, has come into conflict with all its neighbours except Bhutan, on the cross-border water issues. Given an atmosphere of mistrust, an upper riparian India has serious issues to resolve with lower-riparian Pakistan and Bangladesh and, despite being lower-riparian, with upper riparian Nepal. This, however, doesn't mean that India is solely responsible for certain deadlocks, even though its share of responsibility may be larger than that of other countries which have their own physical limitations and political apprehensions.
As elsewhere in the world, and more particularly in this region, where the population explosion continues and environmental degradation worsens, water resources, like energy, are going to be far lower than the increasing demand, even if harnessed to the maximum. Given the depleting resources of water, issues of food security with water security as its most crucial part, are going to assume astronomical proportions. The issue of water distribution and management are bringing not only countries of the region, but also states and regions within provinces into conflict, since they are not being settled amicably in a grand framework of riparian statutes respecting upstream and downstream rights.
What is, however, to be appreciated is that the countries of South Asia have made certain remarkable efforts to resolve their differences over water distribution through bilateral agreements. India and Pakistan signed the Indus Water Treaty (IWT) in 1960, under which Pakistan allocated three eastern rivers (Ravi, Sutlej and Beas) to India and India three western rivers (Indus, Jhelum, and Chenab) to Pakistan.
The IWT has remarkably survived the ups and downs of Indo-Pak relations, and despite wars the parties have upheld the Treaty, although serious differences persist over various projects being undertaken by India over Jehlum (two dams) and Chenab (nine dams) rivers. Similarly, the Ganges Water-Sharing Treaty (GWST) was signed between India and Bangladesh in 1996 that resolved the dispute over Farrakha Barrage, although differences continue on Bangladesh's share of the water during lean periods. Nepal and India signed the Mahakali Treaty in 1996, but despite ratification by the Nepalese parliament, the Treaty has remained stalled.
Despite these treaties, serious differences over water sharing, water management and hydropower projects continue to spoil relations between India, on the one hand, and Pakistan, Bangladesh and Nepal, on the other. Differences between India and Pakistan continue to create ill will between the two on around 11 large hydroelectric projects India plans to construct, including the Baglihar Project, over which Pakistan has sought the appointment of a neutral expert by the World Bank after the failure of talks.
More than the dispute over Jammu and Kashmir, the issue of the waters of Jhelum and Chenab has the potential to once again provoke people in Pakistan against India and push the two countries to war. Dr Mubashar Hassan has given a sound proposal to resolve the dispute over Baglihar. He has proposed to install telemeters on the Baglihar to monitor daily release of water in order to ensure due supply of water from the Baglihar Dam to Pakistan.
Bangladesh, which shares 54 rivers with India as a lower riparian, has serious differences with New Delhi that hinder agreement on eight rivers, besides the continuing complaints by Dhaka over sharing of the waters of the Ganges. The Indian plan, which is now under review, to build a big river-linking-project that includes diversion of water from Ganges and Brahmaputra, has become yet another source of antagonism between the two countries, which have not been able to sort out their differences over a whole range of issues that continue to fuel political tension which, in turn, does not allow the resolution of differences over water.
As an upper riparian, Nepal has a different relationship with India and faces many problems in constructing its dams due to opposition by the lower riparian and has serious doubts about the projects proposed by India. Nepal's mistrust, beside other factors, has been reinforced by what it perceives to be various unequal treaties -- starting from the construction of the Sharada Dam (1927), the 1950 Treaty and the Letters of Exchange of 1950 and 1965, the Koshi Agreement (1954), the Gandak Agreement (1959), the Tanakpur Agreement (1991) and the Mahakali Treaty (1996).
Since 400 million people live in the Ganges, Brahmaputra and Meghna region, India needs Nepal to meet its energy needs and for management of water. Without removing Nepal's apprehensions and taking into account the seismic, environmental and interests of the concerned people, India will not be able to benefit from the water resources and potential sites for dams in Nepal.
Besides many issues of water sharing among the countries of the Subcontinent, there are huge water and energy-related issues that are critically affecting the food security, environment, agriculture and, above all, projection of future scarcity of water presents a doomsday scenario.
There are serious differences over water sharing within different states in India (the Ravi-Beas dispute between Punjab and Haryana and the Cauvery dispute among the sates of Karnataka, Tamil Nadu and Kerala and the territory of Pondicherry), and the provinces of Pakistan (the dispute over water sharing and construction of dams over the Indus between Punjab and Sindh and the NWFP).
Over-exploitation of groundwater in India and Pakistan is rapidly depleting aquifers, which is a cause of great concern. The contamination of water and the presence of arsenic in the groundwater has become a matter of major concern, especially in Bangladesh, and some parts of India and Pakistan.
Climatic changes that are being forecasted and low water discharges need to be addressed collectively. India should, as the South Asia Free Media Association's Delhi Declaration says, "make more efforts to discuss bilaterally with its neighbours problems relating to river waters. A new regional understanding of the riparian issues is essential to resolve Indo-Nepal, Indo-Bangladesh and Indo-Pakistan water issues."
A way out should be found on the Baglihar issue between India and Pakistan to keep the sanctity of the Indus Water Treaty. Regional Riparian statutes must be obligatory to resolve the bilateral water disputes. Regional Riparian rights statute model, respecting the Helsinki Convention proposes 8K upstream and downstream rights, should guide the countries of the Subcontinent to avoid conflict over water and reach a lasting understanding.
Lastly, the "middle path" adopted by Bhutan should guide the planners for sustainable development that is environment-friendly and is not carried by the supply-side approach of the big bomb lobbies. There is great resistance by indigenous people and environmentalist to big dams. There are alternative strategies that propose small dams, instead of big dams. The need is to conserve and tap resources in a sustainable manner. The water resources, instead of becoming a cause of conflict, should be harnessed by the provinces, states and countries while keeping the rights of upper and lower riparian in mind.
Email: imtiazalampak@yahoo.com
Sunday, April 17, 2005
Pak visas for 70,000 foreign Tablighis last year
The News, April 16, 2005
Pak visas for 70,000 foreign Tablighis last year
By Rahimullah Yusufzai
PESHAWAR: More than 70,000 foreigners were given visas for Pakistan late last year to attend the annual Tablighi congregation at Raiwind near Lahore.
Haji Mohammad Javed, a former NWFP minister who is now a stalwart of the Tablighi Jamaat, told The News that federal interior minister Aftab Sherpao on his request facilitated the issuance of 45-day visas to non-Pakistanis wishing to come to Pakistan for the gathering at Raiwind last winter.
Tablighis are preachers who spend days and weeks away from home urging fellow Muslims to return to the ways of Islam. They spend their own money, travel far and wide and sleep in mosques and seminaries.
Speaking at the inauguration ceremony of the new building of the Regional Passport Office in Peshawar’s Hayatabad town Saturday, Sherpao said he considered it a real service to Islam that members of the Tablighi Jamaat were given Pakistani visas for 45 days stay instead of the usual one week. He said the same liberal visa policy would be adopted for "Jor," which is get-together of the Tablighis after period intervals, and those wanting to reach Pakistan for the event would be facilitated.
Pak visas for 70,000 foreign Tablighis last year
By Rahimullah Yusufzai
PESHAWAR: More than 70,000 foreigners were given visas for Pakistan late last year to attend the annual Tablighi congregation at Raiwind near Lahore.
Haji Mohammad Javed, a former NWFP minister who is now a stalwart of the Tablighi Jamaat, told The News that federal interior minister Aftab Sherpao on his request facilitated the issuance of 45-day visas to non-Pakistanis wishing to come to Pakistan for the gathering at Raiwind last winter.
Tablighis are preachers who spend days and weeks away from home urging fellow Muslims to return to the ways of Islam. They spend their own money, travel far and wide and sleep in mosques and seminaries.
Speaking at the inauguration ceremony of the new building of the Regional Passport Office in Peshawar’s Hayatabad town Saturday, Sherpao said he considered it a real service to Islam that members of the Tablighi Jamaat were given Pakistani visas for 45 days stay instead of the usual one week. He said the same liberal visa policy would be adopted for "Jor," which is get-together of the Tablighis after period intervals, and those wanting to reach Pakistan for the event would be facilitated.
Saturday, April 16, 2005
Sino-US rivalry & South Asia
Dawn, April 16, 2005
Sino-US rivalry & South Asia
By Afzaal Mahmood
Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao's four-nation South Asian visit - Pakistan, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka and India - was significant for two reasons. It was the first visit by a top Chinese leader after the generational change of guard in Beijing. Secondly, it showed the importance South Asia had come to acquire in the escalating Sino-US strategic competition.
Though both the United States and China have played down their differences, some recent developments have a tale to tell. Under heavy US pressure, the European Union has postponed the lifting of embargo on arms exports to China until next year at least.
A few weeks ago, China's National People's Congress passed a law authorizing the use of "non-peaceful means" to prevent moves towards Taiwanese independence. The anti-secession law has raised the risk of confrontation between China and the US because neither is accustomed to blinking when its authority is challenged.
Another alarming development is that China-Japan relations have hit rock bottom. In December, Japan for the first time listed China as a potential threat in revised defence guidelines.
It recently described the issue of Taiwan as a major regional security problem., infuriating China which sees it as a domestic issue. Each side has demanded the other to halt oil and gas exploration projects in disputed areas of east China.
Yukio Okamoto, special assistant to the Japanese prime minister, in a speech in New Delhi, recently spoke of Indo-Japanese cooperation to restrain a powerful China that wishes to alter the status quo to right perceived historical wrongs.
Veteran Singapore leader, Lee Kuan Yew, sees a 40 per cent probability of war between China and Taiwan at some point over the next 10 years. President George W. Bush has made it clear that the US will be willing to go to war with China, if need be, to protect the independence of Taiwan.
Washington views China as a clear and emerging threat to the dominant power status of the US and that it must be contained by diplomacy, by trade or even by armed conflict.
Pakistan was the first country to be visited by Premier Wen Jiabao. This was the first official visit by a top Chinese leader since May 2001 when Premier Zhu Rongji came to Pakistan and committed Chinese financial and technical support to large projects including the construction of Gwadar port.
Premier Wen Jiabao's visit was marked by the signing of 22 agreements for specific cooperation in various sectors ranging from agriculture, information technology to energy and education, and involving an investment of $350 million.
However, the most important event during Premier Wen Jiabao's visit was the signing of the Treaty of Friendship, Cooperation and Good Neighbourly relations between Pakistan and China which seeks to take care of Pakistan's perennial sense of insecurity. But for some inexplicable reason, beyond the comprehension of ordinary mortals, the people of Pakistan have been kept in the dark about the text of the treaty. The Chinese side has, however, published extracts from the treaty in the People's Daily.
According to Premier Wen Jiabao, the treaty marks "a new stage" in Pakistan-China friendship. China has always supported the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Pakistan. The treaty seeks to institutionalize the Chinese backing.
A clause in the Treaty stipulates that neither party will join "any alliance or bloc which infringes upon the sovereignty, security and territorial integrity of the other side."
It will be a mistake of immense magnitude if our policymakers continue to believe that, compared to Pakistan, China attaches less importance, weight or value to its friendship with India. If there were any doubts in this regard they should have disappeared after the productive and successful four-day visit of India by Premier Wen Jiabao who said the visit produced "rich results".
The pronouncements of the Chinese premier on important policy issues as well as on the outcome of his talks with Indian leaders clearly show that India is a very important element in China's calculation.
"We are going to put in place," said the Chinese premier in New Delhi, "a bridge of friendship linking our two countries." Even far more significant were his observations to a group of senior Indian journalists: "The 21st century could belong to Asia if India and China developed relations and worked together."
After detailed discussions between the Chinese premier and his Indian counterpart, the two sides reached agreement on a number of issues. On the vexed boundary question, India and China agreed on a set of guiding principles to help them resolve the issue in a "pro-active" manner through "equal and friendly consultations and proceeding from the overall interest of bilateral relations." They also agreed that differences on the boundary question should not be allowed to affect the overall development of bilateral relations.
The Chinese premier made it clear that Sikkim was no longer a problem in Sino-Indian bilateral relations. Consequently, the new map of China did not show Sikkim as part of China. Beijing recognized the Sikkim state as part of the republic of India. But what must have pleased New Delhi most was the statement from China that it would be happy to see India as a permanent member of the Security Council. Justifying the decision, Premier Wen Jiabao said that his country "understands" India to be a "major developing country that plays a positive role in regional and international affairs..... and (is) ready to see a greater role of India in the international arena, the UN included".
From the Chinese point of view, the most significant achievement of the visit was the acceptance by India of China's offer for strategic partnership. Consequently, New Delhi and Beijing have agreed to establish "an India-China strategic and cooperative partnership for peace and prosperity." The two sides also agreed to declare 2006 as the "year of India-China friendship."
India now enjoys the unique distinction of being the "strategic partner" of both the US and China. If economics drives politics, the growing economic ties between India and China at least partially explain the breakthrough in their political relations.
From $2.9 billion in 2000, the level of bilateral trade has jumped to more than $13 billion, bringing the target of $25 billion by 2010 within reach. If the present trend continues, it may put China ahead of the United States as India's largest trading partner.
No doubt, China and India have made determined efforts to remove irritants from their relations. Real politik and pragmatism have played an important role in bringing about a marked improvement in their bilateral ties. Their decision to join hands as strategic partners is a development of great significance with far reaching implications, particularly for the South Asian region.
Whether the two Asian giants can maintain the current tempo of strategic and cooperative partnership will largely depend on how far they succeed in harmonizing their geo-strategic interests.
After joining hands with India as strategic partner, the US now wants to build up New Delhi as a major world power in the 21st century. The objective is to encircle China and prevent the emergence of a hostile rival whose military rise, economic clout and self-confidence in Asian affairs make the world's biggest communist country a real threat in the eyes of the Bush administration.
There are unmistakable indications that South Asia is unwittingly getting involved in the escalating US-China strategic competition. Pakistan is a non-Nato ally of the US and its front-line collaborator in the war against terror. Recently, it signed a Treaty of Friendship and Cooperation with China with whom it has had a time-tested and comprehensive relationship.
Has Islamabad given sufficient thought to the implications of a divided South Asia and getting involved in the emerging US- China rivalry? Will it be able to maintain neutrality and equi-distance from Washington and Beijing? Have policymakers taken into consideration the very damaging consequences which will inevitably follow if South Asia gets sucked in US-China strategic competition? These are questions that need careful deliberation.
The writer is a former ambassador.
Sino-US rivalry & South Asia
By Afzaal Mahmood
Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao's four-nation South Asian visit - Pakistan, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka and India - was significant for two reasons. It was the first visit by a top Chinese leader after the generational change of guard in Beijing. Secondly, it showed the importance South Asia had come to acquire in the escalating Sino-US strategic competition.
Though both the United States and China have played down their differences, some recent developments have a tale to tell. Under heavy US pressure, the European Union has postponed the lifting of embargo on arms exports to China until next year at least.
A few weeks ago, China's National People's Congress passed a law authorizing the use of "non-peaceful means" to prevent moves towards Taiwanese independence. The anti-secession law has raised the risk of confrontation between China and the US because neither is accustomed to blinking when its authority is challenged.
Another alarming development is that China-Japan relations have hit rock bottom. In December, Japan for the first time listed China as a potential threat in revised defence guidelines.
It recently described the issue of Taiwan as a major regional security problem., infuriating China which sees it as a domestic issue. Each side has demanded the other to halt oil and gas exploration projects in disputed areas of east China.
Yukio Okamoto, special assistant to the Japanese prime minister, in a speech in New Delhi, recently spoke of Indo-Japanese cooperation to restrain a powerful China that wishes to alter the status quo to right perceived historical wrongs.
Veteran Singapore leader, Lee Kuan Yew, sees a 40 per cent probability of war between China and Taiwan at some point over the next 10 years. President George W. Bush has made it clear that the US will be willing to go to war with China, if need be, to protect the independence of Taiwan.
Washington views China as a clear and emerging threat to the dominant power status of the US and that it must be contained by diplomacy, by trade or even by armed conflict.
Pakistan was the first country to be visited by Premier Wen Jiabao. This was the first official visit by a top Chinese leader since May 2001 when Premier Zhu Rongji came to Pakistan and committed Chinese financial and technical support to large projects including the construction of Gwadar port.
Premier Wen Jiabao's visit was marked by the signing of 22 agreements for specific cooperation in various sectors ranging from agriculture, information technology to energy and education, and involving an investment of $350 million.
However, the most important event during Premier Wen Jiabao's visit was the signing of the Treaty of Friendship, Cooperation and Good Neighbourly relations between Pakistan and China which seeks to take care of Pakistan's perennial sense of insecurity. But for some inexplicable reason, beyond the comprehension of ordinary mortals, the people of Pakistan have been kept in the dark about the text of the treaty. The Chinese side has, however, published extracts from the treaty in the People's Daily.
According to Premier Wen Jiabao, the treaty marks "a new stage" in Pakistan-China friendship. China has always supported the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Pakistan. The treaty seeks to institutionalize the Chinese backing.
A clause in the Treaty stipulates that neither party will join "any alliance or bloc which infringes upon the sovereignty, security and territorial integrity of the other side."
It will be a mistake of immense magnitude if our policymakers continue to believe that, compared to Pakistan, China attaches less importance, weight or value to its friendship with India. If there were any doubts in this regard they should have disappeared after the productive and successful four-day visit of India by Premier Wen Jiabao who said the visit produced "rich results".
The pronouncements of the Chinese premier on important policy issues as well as on the outcome of his talks with Indian leaders clearly show that India is a very important element in China's calculation.
"We are going to put in place," said the Chinese premier in New Delhi, "a bridge of friendship linking our two countries." Even far more significant were his observations to a group of senior Indian journalists: "The 21st century could belong to Asia if India and China developed relations and worked together."
After detailed discussions between the Chinese premier and his Indian counterpart, the two sides reached agreement on a number of issues. On the vexed boundary question, India and China agreed on a set of guiding principles to help them resolve the issue in a "pro-active" manner through "equal and friendly consultations and proceeding from the overall interest of bilateral relations." They also agreed that differences on the boundary question should not be allowed to affect the overall development of bilateral relations.
The Chinese premier made it clear that Sikkim was no longer a problem in Sino-Indian bilateral relations. Consequently, the new map of China did not show Sikkim as part of China. Beijing recognized the Sikkim state as part of the republic of India. But what must have pleased New Delhi most was the statement from China that it would be happy to see India as a permanent member of the Security Council. Justifying the decision, Premier Wen Jiabao said that his country "understands" India to be a "major developing country that plays a positive role in regional and international affairs..... and (is) ready to see a greater role of India in the international arena, the UN included".
From the Chinese point of view, the most significant achievement of the visit was the acceptance by India of China's offer for strategic partnership. Consequently, New Delhi and Beijing have agreed to establish "an India-China strategic and cooperative partnership for peace and prosperity." The two sides also agreed to declare 2006 as the "year of India-China friendship."
India now enjoys the unique distinction of being the "strategic partner" of both the US and China. If economics drives politics, the growing economic ties between India and China at least partially explain the breakthrough in their political relations.
From $2.9 billion in 2000, the level of bilateral trade has jumped to more than $13 billion, bringing the target of $25 billion by 2010 within reach. If the present trend continues, it may put China ahead of the United States as India's largest trading partner.
No doubt, China and India have made determined efforts to remove irritants from their relations. Real politik and pragmatism have played an important role in bringing about a marked improvement in their bilateral ties. Their decision to join hands as strategic partners is a development of great significance with far reaching implications, particularly for the South Asian region.
Whether the two Asian giants can maintain the current tempo of strategic and cooperative partnership will largely depend on how far they succeed in harmonizing their geo-strategic interests.
After joining hands with India as strategic partner, the US now wants to build up New Delhi as a major world power in the 21st century. The objective is to encircle China and prevent the emergence of a hostile rival whose military rise, economic clout and self-confidence in Asian affairs make the world's biggest communist country a real threat in the eyes of the Bush administration.
There are unmistakable indications that South Asia is unwittingly getting involved in the escalating US-China strategic competition. Pakistan is a non-Nato ally of the US and its front-line collaborator in the war against terror. Recently, it signed a Treaty of Friendship and Cooperation with China with whom it has had a time-tested and comprehensive relationship.
Has Islamabad given sufficient thought to the implications of a divided South Asia and getting involved in the emerging US- China rivalry? Will it be able to maintain neutrality and equi-distance from Washington and Beijing? Have policymakers taken into consideration the very damaging consequences which will inevitably follow if South Asia gets sucked in US-China strategic competition? These are questions that need careful deliberation.
The writer is a former ambassador.
Washington conference studies educational crisis in Pakistan
Daily Times, April 17, 2005
Washington conference studies educational crisis in Pakistan
By Khalid Hasan
WASHINGTON: Pakistan is facing an educational crisis and urgent and far-reaching steps need to be taken to arrest the decline, was the consensus at a conference held here on Friday.
The one-day event was organised by the Woodrow Wilson Centre and captioned ‘No Child Left Behind: the crisis in Pakistan’s education system.’ It was addressed, among others, by State Bank governor Ishrat Hussain, adviser to the prime minister Salman Shah, Munawwar Noorani, chairman Fellowship Fund for Pakistan, Michelle Riboud of the World Bank, Mark Ward of USAID, Ahsan Saleem, chairman Citizens Foundation, Karachi, Grace Clark of the US Educational Foundation in Pakistan, Ambassador William B. Milam of the Woodrow Wilson Centre, Prof. Tariq Rahman who is currently at the University of California at Berkeley and former World Bank vice president Shahid Javed Burki.
Shahid Javed Burki told the conference that what was “scary” about Pakistan was its burgeoning population which had grown from 30 million in 1947 to 150 million today. If it continued to grow at that rate, in the next 25 years it would be the world’s fifth most populated states, with half of its population under the age of 18. The state would not be able to deliver the services that its large and young population would require. The state would be dysfunctional. He said when a state was unable to absorb its citizens economically, it results in enormous problems.
Turning to education, he pointed out that in Pakistan 75 percent of the students were still in state-run schools. The state machinery responsible for education was poorly endowed and was inefficient and even corrupt. He felt that devolution might be one way of grappling with the problem more effectively.
Burki said the Pakistani Diaspora could play a big role in helping the country finance the educational system and run it on the desired lines. He said the earnings of the half million Pakistanis settled abroad were equal to 30 percent of Pakistan’s GDP, but this great resource needs to be mobilised. The state, he argued, must get out of the direct management of education. He said he found the possibilities held out by the current devolution process in Pakistan “exciting”. He felt that what was required was to develop a “core curriculum” that all schools should be obligated to follow. An autonomous body should be entrusted with this important task. This body should approve a list of textbooks and schools should be obliged to choose their curriculum only from that list. The future of education lay in private-public partnership. He also recommended that the Pakistan government should set up a scholarship programme for the underprivileged.
Michelle Riboud of the World Bank in her presentation pointed out that government school teachers were often absent from their duties and parental involvement was low. The government needs to exercise a high level of monitoring and oversight of the schools it runs. Mark Ward of USAID who has been involved with education in Pakistan for a considerable period emphasised that commitment to education at the top was essential. He said US Congress had asked USAID to present a report on education in Pakistan, an indication of Congress’s concern and interest. He said some impressive developments had taken place in Pakistan in recent years, with 7,000 functioning literacy centres and an increase in the number of teacher training facilities. The ministry of education was engaged in the task of modernising syllabi. Some NGOs had done commendable work in this area. He said Japan in association with USAID was helping build schools in the South Waziristan area. He was critical of the low rate of disbursement of sanctioned funds for education by the government. He felt that devolution held great promise and the future of education lay in private-public partnership. He also had words of praise for the new minister of education, Javed Ashraf Qazi, whom he found committed to the task he had taken in hand. He found the establishment of a cell in the ministry to monitor progress in the field an important decision.
Grace Clark told the conference that only 2.9 percent of Pakistanis had access to higher education. No Pakistani university was included in the 500 top universities of the world. There was a notable shortage of PhDs at Pakistani universities. The libraries and laboratories were ill-equipped and it was her observation that Pakistani libraries kept their books locked up. Many of the departments at Pakistani universities were “basket cases.”
Ahsan Saleem of the Citizens Foundation, Karachi, made the most impressive presentation from amongst the large number of speakers who addressed the conference. He said half the children born in Pakistan would never see the inside of a school. There were 36 million children on the street. Half the schools in Pakistan had no toilettes and there was one teacher to 66 students. Only 2.9 percent of the GDP was spent on education. He informed the conference about the work of his Foundation founded in 1995 and how it was almost entirely financed through private contributions. He said no such enterprise could succeed unless it has the support of the local community. He said untrained teachers play havoc with the children in their charge. He told the meeting that the Foundation was running 250 schools and was hoping to increase their number to 1,000 by 2015. He said those in decision making positions should remember the saying, “If you think education is expensive, try illiteracy.”
Tariq Rahman pleaded for education to be imparted in the mother tongue. He said it was unfortunate that the phrase “Urdu medium” was treated as in insult in Pakistan society. He cited figures to show that the state was in fact subsidising elitist education. He also regretted that five private universities were controlled by the armed forces. There is a “militarisation of elitist education” in Pakistan, he added. He was critical of the textbooks prescribed for students that inculcated hatred for other religions, celebrated the virtues of was as state policy and projected Pakistan as a “garrison state.” He pointed out that though the government had reversed its policies after 9/11, such a reversal had yet to take place when it came to textbooks in the nation’s schools.
Washington conference studies educational crisis in Pakistan
By Khalid Hasan
WASHINGTON: Pakistan is facing an educational crisis and urgent and far-reaching steps need to be taken to arrest the decline, was the consensus at a conference held here on Friday.
The one-day event was organised by the Woodrow Wilson Centre and captioned ‘No Child Left Behind: the crisis in Pakistan’s education system.’ It was addressed, among others, by State Bank governor Ishrat Hussain, adviser to the prime minister Salman Shah, Munawwar Noorani, chairman Fellowship Fund for Pakistan, Michelle Riboud of the World Bank, Mark Ward of USAID, Ahsan Saleem, chairman Citizens Foundation, Karachi, Grace Clark of the US Educational Foundation in Pakistan, Ambassador William B. Milam of the Woodrow Wilson Centre, Prof. Tariq Rahman who is currently at the University of California at Berkeley and former World Bank vice president Shahid Javed Burki.
Shahid Javed Burki told the conference that what was “scary” about Pakistan was its burgeoning population which had grown from 30 million in 1947 to 150 million today. If it continued to grow at that rate, in the next 25 years it would be the world’s fifth most populated states, with half of its population under the age of 18. The state would not be able to deliver the services that its large and young population would require. The state would be dysfunctional. He said when a state was unable to absorb its citizens economically, it results in enormous problems.
Turning to education, he pointed out that in Pakistan 75 percent of the students were still in state-run schools. The state machinery responsible for education was poorly endowed and was inefficient and even corrupt. He felt that devolution might be one way of grappling with the problem more effectively.
Burki said the Pakistani Diaspora could play a big role in helping the country finance the educational system and run it on the desired lines. He said the earnings of the half million Pakistanis settled abroad were equal to 30 percent of Pakistan’s GDP, but this great resource needs to be mobilised. The state, he argued, must get out of the direct management of education. He said he found the possibilities held out by the current devolution process in Pakistan “exciting”. He felt that what was required was to develop a “core curriculum” that all schools should be obligated to follow. An autonomous body should be entrusted with this important task. This body should approve a list of textbooks and schools should be obliged to choose their curriculum only from that list. The future of education lay in private-public partnership. He also recommended that the Pakistan government should set up a scholarship programme for the underprivileged.
Michelle Riboud of the World Bank in her presentation pointed out that government school teachers were often absent from their duties and parental involvement was low. The government needs to exercise a high level of monitoring and oversight of the schools it runs. Mark Ward of USAID who has been involved with education in Pakistan for a considerable period emphasised that commitment to education at the top was essential. He said US Congress had asked USAID to present a report on education in Pakistan, an indication of Congress’s concern and interest. He said some impressive developments had taken place in Pakistan in recent years, with 7,000 functioning literacy centres and an increase in the number of teacher training facilities. The ministry of education was engaged in the task of modernising syllabi. Some NGOs had done commendable work in this area. He said Japan in association with USAID was helping build schools in the South Waziristan area. He was critical of the low rate of disbursement of sanctioned funds for education by the government. He felt that devolution held great promise and the future of education lay in private-public partnership. He also had words of praise for the new minister of education, Javed Ashraf Qazi, whom he found committed to the task he had taken in hand. He found the establishment of a cell in the ministry to monitor progress in the field an important decision.
Grace Clark told the conference that only 2.9 percent of Pakistanis had access to higher education. No Pakistani university was included in the 500 top universities of the world. There was a notable shortage of PhDs at Pakistani universities. The libraries and laboratories were ill-equipped and it was her observation that Pakistani libraries kept their books locked up. Many of the departments at Pakistani universities were “basket cases.”
Ahsan Saleem of the Citizens Foundation, Karachi, made the most impressive presentation from amongst the large number of speakers who addressed the conference. He said half the children born in Pakistan would never see the inside of a school. There were 36 million children on the street. Half the schools in Pakistan had no toilettes and there was one teacher to 66 students. Only 2.9 percent of the GDP was spent on education. He informed the conference about the work of his Foundation founded in 1995 and how it was almost entirely financed through private contributions. He said no such enterprise could succeed unless it has the support of the local community. He said untrained teachers play havoc with the children in their charge. He told the meeting that the Foundation was running 250 schools and was hoping to increase their number to 1,000 by 2015. He said those in decision making positions should remember the saying, “If you think education is expensive, try illiteracy.”
Tariq Rahman pleaded for education to be imparted in the mother tongue. He said it was unfortunate that the phrase “Urdu medium” was treated as in insult in Pakistan society. He cited figures to show that the state was in fact subsidising elitist education. He also regretted that five private universities were controlled by the armed forces. There is a “militarisation of elitist education” in Pakistan, he added. He was critical of the textbooks prescribed for students that inculcated hatred for other religions, celebrated the virtues of was as state policy and projected Pakistan as a “garrison state.” He pointed out that though the government had reversed its policies after 9/11, such a reversal had yet to take place when it came to textbooks in the nation’s schools.
Pakistan unlikely to defy US on gas pipeline
Daily Times, April 17, 2005
Pakistan unlikely to defy US on gas pipeline
By Khalid Hasan
WASHINGTON: Pakistan is unlikely to defy the United States if the proposed mega gas pipeline project linking Iran, Pakistan and India is found to violate US law.
According to Salman Shah, adviser for finance to the prime minister, Pakistan would study the US law that triggers sanctions against any company that invests in or collaborates with Iranian oil and energy projects. US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice expressed Washington’s opposition to the proposed tri-state gas pipeline project during her recent visit to South Asia.
In a briefing to journalists at the Pakistan embassy on Friday evening, Shah said if the pipeline violates any US law, “we’ll take a look at it.” He said there were several options that Pakistan could consider, besides the said pipeline. It was clear from the adviser’s carefully crafted answers to a volley of questions on this issue that Pakistan would not violate US law, or in other words, not become a party to the gas pipeline project were the US to take a strong position on the issue, something it appears to have already done. He said it was too early to state with finality what decision Pakistan would make. He said, for example, were the gas to be delivered to Pakistan at its borders, it might not involve any investment on Pakistan’s part. “We are looking at all possibilities,” he added. He said the Indian oil minister would visit Islamabad soon when this question was likely to come up for discussion.
Shah and State Bank Governor Ishrat Hussain are in Washington for the spring meetings of the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund. They also spoke earlier in the morning at a conference on education in Pakistan organised by the Woodrow Wilson Centre.
Speaking at the Woodrow Wilson Centre, Hussain said Pakistan had lost considerable earnings due to under-investment in education. He referred to a study that said Pakistan’s 1985 income would have been 25 percent higher if it had had Indonesia’s 1960 primary enrolment rate. Extending the projection to 2005 would show that Pakistan’s per capita income today would have been almost double of what it is and its record on poverty reduction much better. He said Pakistan had paid dearly for allowing the gender gap to persist. “Pakistan thus missed economic opportunities that have been exploited by many developing countries by increasing education levels for the bulk of their labour force,” he added.
Hussain pointed out that higher education in Pakistan has received a big boost in the allocation of financial resources and improvement in the quality of education. He quoted figures that, he argued, explode the popular Western myth that Pakistan’s education system is heavily populated by madrassas which are producing fundamentalists, extremists and terrorists for the rest of the world. Primary enrolment in madrassas, he added, accounts for only 0.9 percent of the total enrolment and there is differentiation among even those attending madrassas. A majority was not affiliated with any of the religious political parties or jihadi groups. In fact, these madrassas offer a balanced curriculum to their students.
Hussain said he would like to explain the phenomenon of higher incidence of unemployment coexisting with rapid growth in Pakistan. First, there was a serious mismatch between the jobs demanded by the emerging needs of the economy and the supply of skills and trained manpower in the country. The mismatch has created waste and misallocation of resources on the one hand and shortages of essential skills required to keep the economy moving on the other. Second, there is a “crisis of expectation” among the families and youth belonging to certain areas of the country which have enjoyed quota reservations in government jobs in the past. Third, the aggregate elasticity of employment with respect to Gross Domestic Product (GDP) was historically high because of the relative weight of agriculture. The share of agriculture in GDP has been declining. High unemployment rates under these conditions of productivity and efficiency gains are therefore not surprising. Fourth, there was much labour market segmentation in Pakistan, with Karachi being the exception that absorbs people from all parts of the country. The national labour market was less efficient that regional labour markets. Fifth, the archaic and outdated labour laws, levies and benefit payments imposed upon the formal sector of the economy create a wedge between the units costs borne by the employer and the actual wage received by the employees.
The State Bank governor said the future agenda for Pakistan would need to address the issue of greater focus on technical and vocational education, expansion of enrolment in higher education to at least 10 percent of the relevant age group, improvement of access, quality and governance of primary and secondary schooling, provision of incentives to encourage female enrolment in schools, reform of madrassa education, and restructuring of labour laws and regulations that discourage employment in the formal sector.
Pakistan unlikely to defy US on gas pipeline
By Khalid Hasan
WASHINGTON: Pakistan is unlikely to defy the United States if the proposed mega gas pipeline project linking Iran, Pakistan and India is found to violate US law.
According to Salman Shah, adviser for finance to the prime minister, Pakistan would study the US law that triggers sanctions against any company that invests in or collaborates with Iranian oil and energy projects. US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice expressed Washington’s opposition to the proposed tri-state gas pipeline project during her recent visit to South Asia.
In a briefing to journalists at the Pakistan embassy on Friday evening, Shah said if the pipeline violates any US law, “we’ll take a look at it.” He said there were several options that Pakistan could consider, besides the said pipeline. It was clear from the adviser’s carefully crafted answers to a volley of questions on this issue that Pakistan would not violate US law, or in other words, not become a party to the gas pipeline project were the US to take a strong position on the issue, something it appears to have already done. He said it was too early to state with finality what decision Pakistan would make. He said, for example, were the gas to be delivered to Pakistan at its borders, it might not involve any investment on Pakistan’s part. “We are looking at all possibilities,” he added. He said the Indian oil minister would visit Islamabad soon when this question was likely to come up for discussion.
Shah and State Bank Governor Ishrat Hussain are in Washington for the spring meetings of the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund. They also spoke earlier in the morning at a conference on education in Pakistan organised by the Woodrow Wilson Centre.
Speaking at the Woodrow Wilson Centre, Hussain said Pakistan had lost considerable earnings due to under-investment in education. He referred to a study that said Pakistan’s 1985 income would have been 25 percent higher if it had had Indonesia’s 1960 primary enrolment rate. Extending the projection to 2005 would show that Pakistan’s per capita income today would have been almost double of what it is and its record on poverty reduction much better. He said Pakistan had paid dearly for allowing the gender gap to persist. “Pakistan thus missed economic opportunities that have been exploited by many developing countries by increasing education levels for the bulk of their labour force,” he added.
Hussain pointed out that higher education in Pakistan has received a big boost in the allocation of financial resources and improvement in the quality of education. He quoted figures that, he argued, explode the popular Western myth that Pakistan’s education system is heavily populated by madrassas which are producing fundamentalists, extremists and terrorists for the rest of the world. Primary enrolment in madrassas, he added, accounts for only 0.9 percent of the total enrolment and there is differentiation among even those attending madrassas. A majority was not affiliated with any of the religious political parties or jihadi groups. In fact, these madrassas offer a balanced curriculum to their students.
Hussain said he would like to explain the phenomenon of higher incidence of unemployment coexisting with rapid growth in Pakistan. First, there was a serious mismatch between the jobs demanded by the emerging needs of the economy and the supply of skills and trained manpower in the country. The mismatch has created waste and misallocation of resources on the one hand and shortages of essential skills required to keep the economy moving on the other. Second, there is a “crisis of expectation” among the families and youth belonging to certain areas of the country which have enjoyed quota reservations in government jobs in the past. Third, the aggregate elasticity of employment with respect to Gross Domestic Product (GDP) was historically high because of the relative weight of agriculture. The share of agriculture in GDP has been declining. High unemployment rates under these conditions of productivity and efficiency gains are therefore not surprising. Fourth, there was much labour market segmentation in Pakistan, with Karachi being the exception that absorbs people from all parts of the country. The national labour market was less efficient that regional labour markets. Fifth, the archaic and outdated labour laws, levies and benefit payments imposed upon the formal sector of the economy create a wedge between the units costs borne by the employer and the actual wage received by the employees.
The State Bank governor said the future agenda for Pakistan would need to address the issue of greater focus on technical and vocational education, expansion of enrolment in higher education to at least 10 percent of the relevant age group, improvement of access, quality and governance of primary and secondary schooling, provision of incentives to encourage female enrolment in schools, reform of madrassa education, and restructuring of labour laws and regulations that discourage employment in the formal sector.
Friday, April 15, 2005
‘Pakistan had no part in Taliban’s emergence’: Distorting History - the ISI style
Daily Times, April 16, 2005
‘Pakistan had no part in Taliban’s emergence’
Staff Report
PESHAWAR: Negating any possibility that Pakistan was instrumental in raising the Taliban movement in Afghanistan, a former senior officer of Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) has said the Islamic militia may not re-emerge in their original form but their ideals will continue to inspire coming Afghan generations as they represent a socio-religious system.
Delivering a lecture Friday at the Area Study Centre (ASC) for Russia, China and Central Asia, Peshawar University, Colonel (r) Sultan Amir Imam expressed his views on the topic ‘Taliban phenomenon and its effect on neighboring countries.” Former Interior Minister Naseerullah Khan Babar, Brigadier (r) Mohammad Anwar, a former ISI officer responsible for political affairs of Afghan resistance groups in Pakistan, Professor Dr Azmat Hayat Khan, director ASC, and a number of students and journalists attended the talk.
Col Imam, who enjoys legendary popularity among former Afghan mujahideen for his involvement in Afghanistan since 1983 until the fall of the Taliban, declared Taliban a “regular feature of Afghan social life” in almost all ages. He said that religious seminaries had existed in Khurasan for many centuries and even the first Afghan king, Ahmad Shah Abdali, was a Talib from Multan.
“The Taliban had never been a part of the political process in Afghan history but they were at the forefront whenever the governmental authority witnessed a severe breakdown. But ultimately they returned and did not join the political power process,” he said.
The ex-ISI official said that when Russia invaded Afghanistan, the most hardcore recruits to resist the Soviets emerged from religious seminaries. When the Russian forces withdrew from Afghanistan, the Taliban returned to their seminaries but circumstances once again called them back to the war front, he added. He said that when in October 1994, a Pakistani convoy being headed by him as Pakistan’s envoy in Herat was cordoned by local Asmat and Nadri militiamen, the Taliban emerged on the scene and it created a wrong impression that perhaps Pakistan had raised the Taliban force. On the contrary, he said, the Taliban were an indigenous rising. He said severe infighting and a civil war-like situation in Afghanistan, the complete breakdown of law and order, hooliganism, and the existence of warlords were the circumstances that ultimately paved the way for the Taliban’s consecutive victories.
The only force that stood in the Taliban’s way was Gulbadin Hekmatyar’s Hizb-e-Islami, he said. But his fighters refused to fight the Taliban and Hekmatyar lost ground, he told the audience.
Naseerullah Babar substantiated Col Imam’s claim and said that Gulbadin had telephoned him after the emergence of the Taliban and sought advise as to whether he should fight them or not. Babar said he advised Gulbadin not to fight the Taliban.
‘Pakistan had no part in Taliban’s emergence’
Staff Report
PESHAWAR: Negating any possibility that Pakistan was instrumental in raising the Taliban movement in Afghanistan, a former senior officer of Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) has said the Islamic militia may not re-emerge in their original form but their ideals will continue to inspire coming Afghan generations as they represent a socio-religious system.
Delivering a lecture Friday at the Area Study Centre (ASC) for Russia, China and Central Asia, Peshawar University, Colonel (r) Sultan Amir Imam expressed his views on the topic ‘Taliban phenomenon and its effect on neighboring countries.” Former Interior Minister Naseerullah Khan Babar, Brigadier (r) Mohammad Anwar, a former ISI officer responsible for political affairs of Afghan resistance groups in Pakistan, Professor Dr Azmat Hayat Khan, director ASC, and a number of students and journalists attended the talk.
Col Imam, who enjoys legendary popularity among former Afghan mujahideen for his involvement in Afghanistan since 1983 until the fall of the Taliban, declared Taliban a “regular feature of Afghan social life” in almost all ages. He said that religious seminaries had existed in Khurasan for many centuries and even the first Afghan king, Ahmad Shah Abdali, was a Talib from Multan.
“The Taliban had never been a part of the political process in Afghan history but they were at the forefront whenever the governmental authority witnessed a severe breakdown. But ultimately they returned and did not join the political power process,” he said.
The ex-ISI official said that when Russia invaded Afghanistan, the most hardcore recruits to resist the Soviets emerged from religious seminaries. When the Russian forces withdrew from Afghanistan, the Taliban returned to their seminaries but circumstances once again called them back to the war front, he added. He said that when in October 1994, a Pakistani convoy being headed by him as Pakistan’s envoy in Herat was cordoned by local Asmat and Nadri militiamen, the Taliban emerged on the scene and it created a wrong impression that perhaps Pakistan had raised the Taliban force. On the contrary, he said, the Taliban were an indigenous rising. He said severe infighting and a civil war-like situation in Afghanistan, the complete breakdown of law and order, hooliganism, and the existence of warlords were the circumstances that ultimately paved the way for the Taliban’s consecutive victories.
The only force that stood in the Taliban’s way was Gulbadin Hekmatyar’s Hizb-e-Islami, he said. But his fighters refused to fight the Taliban and Hekmatyar lost ground, he told the audience.
Naseerullah Babar substantiated Col Imam’s claim and said that Gulbadin had telephoned him after the emergence of the Taliban and sought advise as to whether he should fight them or not. Babar said he advised Gulbadin not to fight the Taliban.
New US strategy in South Asia: Gen. Mirza Aslam Beg
Dawn, April 12, 2005
New US strategy in South Asia
By Mirza Aslam Beg
The decision to sell the F-16 to Pakistan and India, defines the US policy for South Asia and the region as a whole, and is linked with the "policy of forward engagement."
This, in essence, means retaining a military presence in the region as the pre-requisite for "pre-eminence in Eurasia - and America's global primacy, (which) is directly dependent on how long and how effectively its preponderance on the Eurasian continent is sustained."
The US has a massive military presence in Iraq, Afghanistan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan, while Nato is seeking a greater role in Asia. Mr Hoop Scheffer, secretary-general of Nato, says, "Nato is doing its part in this global coalition against terror, against proliferation, against fragile and failed states. Nato is transforming fundamentally, militarily, politically, building new partnerships, new alliances.
It is important that, I touch base on behalf of Nato on what's happening in this region, which is geographically far away but, nevertheless, given the challenges, are very relevant to Nato." Meanwhile, a nuclear-capable Pakistan, having a meaningful conventional military capability, is expected to act as a balancing force from the Oxus in the north to the river Beas in the south.
The scenario is both enticing and ominous. Does it indicate "the logic of think tank strategist or a defence contractor", as the Indian journalist M.J. akbar questions, or is it based on flawed intelligence of the CIA? In either case, it entails security problems, which need be analysed a bit dispassionately.
Ukraine's orange revolution gave a new turn to events. Russia warned, "If India will not fully honour our interests, then there is no need to attach strings, conditions and demands from Russia not to trade (in arms) with Pakistan.
Currently, at the request of India, Moscow is not cooperating with Islamabad in the defence sector. Defence ties with India could come to a halt if India sought to mix its technologies with proposed purchases from the United States."
Within days, president Putin arrived in New Delhi and signed a long term deal for the purchase of high-tech weapons and equipment. India also agreed to build the pipeline from Iran.
The US was perturbed that its strategic partner India was going much too far and had to be restrained. The sale of the F-16s and F-18s to Pakistan and India respectively, therefore, was hurriedly approved, as quid pro quo for abandoning the pipeline project with Iran, as the first step.
How far India will oblige the United States is to be viewed from the angle of that the strategic partnership with the US as much too alluring to be dispensed with for the sake of Russia, which demands a different role and level of friendship: "The Russian Federation and the Republic of India are convinced that their bilateral cooperation in all forms, and their strategic partnership, contributes to the strengthening of the regional and global goodwill and cooperation."
Putin stated the immediate need for: "a strategic alliance between Russia, China and India a the foundation of a multi polar world - a world wide alliance that would curb the American superpower."
India, no doubt, is in an envious position, with coveting demands both from the east and the west, exerting a strategic pull. India's decision will be vital as it would either take us back into the cold war paradigm of confrontation and conflict or into a new era of peace and harmony, in South Asia in particular.
Pakistan is happy that its nuclear capability has been enhanced with the sale of the F-16s. Militarily and politically, it gives a boost to the present government. The military uniform and democracy are considered compatible, under a queer logic, which is expected to last until October 2007.
The third generation F-16s would partially cover the technological gap with India, but the search for the fourth generation high-tech, air superiority aircraft will continue.
In any case, the hybrid JF-17 Thunder, will soon replace the F-16. Politically, the message is loud and clear: "don't rock the boat." A divided MMA is agitating while the PPPP and the PML-N stand on the sidelines, waiting for better times, or a more clear signal.
Pakistan has to make a difficult choice, either to view the F-16 offer as a military need, or take recourse to a dynamic and pragmatic diplomacy, compatible with the demands of the emerging world order, which offers several options.
Uni polarity is giving way to multi polarity, as new centres of geo economic power are emerging, as expressed by Putin: "The transformation in the global environment in the recent past, stresses the need for a new international architecture based on a multi polar world."
The future, therefore, provides a much more level playing field for diplomacy to operate, because, for Pakistan, the United States is important as much as, Pakistan is important for the United States.
Pakistan's pivotal position, at the crossroads of Asia is most significant and its strategic importance will be judged, not only, by relating itself to Washington or Moscow, but its ability to harmonize with the shifting centre of gravity.
KISSINGER IDENTIFIES: "Tectonic international upheavals mark our period. The centre of gravity of world affairs is moving to the Pacific and almost all major actors on the international stage are defining new roles for themselves. That transformation is about concept as much as about power."
Pakistan has the choice to serve as the "American fortress, guarding the eastern wall of the Middle East region", as M.J. Akbar thinks, or enter into a new era - a new diplomatic paradigm of cooperation with its neighbour and the global contending centres of power: This strategic choice will correct the strategic error of the past and determine the future of Pakistan and the regional ethos.
The writer is a former Chief of Army Staff.
New US strategy in South Asia
By Mirza Aslam Beg
The decision to sell the F-16 to Pakistan and India, defines the US policy for South Asia and the region as a whole, and is linked with the "policy of forward engagement."
This, in essence, means retaining a military presence in the region as the pre-requisite for "pre-eminence in Eurasia - and America's global primacy, (which) is directly dependent on how long and how effectively its preponderance on the Eurasian continent is sustained."
The US has a massive military presence in Iraq, Afghanistan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan, while Nato is seeking a greater role in Asia. Mr Hoop Scheffer, secretary-general of Nato, says, "Nato is doing its part in this global coalition against terror, against proliferation, against fragile and failed states. Nato is transforming fundamentally, militarily, politically, building new partnerships, new alliances.
It is important that, I touch base on behalf of Nato on what's happening in this region, which is geographically far away but, nevertheless, given the challenges, are very relevant to Nato." Meanwhile, a nuclear-capable Pakistan, having a meaningful conventional military capability, is expected to act as a balancing force from the Oxus in the north to the river Beas in the south.
The scenario is both enticing and ominous. Does it indicate "the logic of think tank strategist or a defence contractor", as the Indian journalist M.J. akbar questions, or is it based on flawed intelligence of the CIA? In either case, it entails security problems, which need be analysed a bit dispassionately.
Ukraine's orange revolution gave a new turn to events. Russia warned, "If India will not fully honour our interests, then there is no need to attach strings, conditions and demands from Russia not to trade (in arms) with Pakistan.
Currently, at the request of India, Moscow is not cooperating with Islamabad in the defence sector. Defence ties with India could come to a halt if India sought to mix its technologies with proposed purchases from the United States."
Within days, president Putin arrived in New Delhi and signed a long term deal for the purchase of high-tech weapons and equipment. India also agreed to build the pipeline from Iran.
The US was perturbed that its strategic partner India was going much too far and had to be restrained. The sale of the F-16s and F-18s to Pakistan and India respectively, therefore, was hurriedly approved, as quid pro quo for abandoning the pipeline project with Iran, as the first step.
How far India will oblige the United States is to be viewed from the angle of that the strategic partnership with the US as much too alluring to be dispensed with for the sake of Russia, which demands a different role and level of friendship: "The Russian Federation and the Republic of India are convinced that their bilateral cooperation in all forms, and their strategic partnership, contributes to the strengthening of the regional and global goodwill and cooperation."
Putin stated the immediate need for: "a strategic alliance between Russia, China and India a the foundation of a multi polar world - a world wide alliance that would curb the American superpower."
India, no doubt, is in an envious position, with coveting demands both from the east and the west, exerting a strategic pull. India's decision will be vital as it would either take us back into the cold war paradigm of confrontation and conflict or into a new era of peace and harmony, in South Asia in particular.
Pakistan is happy that its nuclear capability has been enhanced with the sale of the F-16s. Militarily and politically, it gives a boost to the present government. The military uniform and democracy are considered compatible, under a queer logic, which is expected to last until October 2007.
The third generation F-16s would partially cover the technological gap with India, but the search for the fourth generation high-tech, air superiority aircraft will continue.
In any case, the hybrid JF-17 Thunder, will soon replace the F-16. Politically, the message is loud and clear: "don't rock the boat." A divided MMA is agitating while the PPPP and the PML-N stand on the sidelines, waiting for better times, or a more clear signal.
Pakistan has to make a difficult choice, either to view the F-16 offer as a military need, or take recourse to a dynamic and pragmatic diplomacy, compatible with the demands of the emerging world order, which offers several options.
Uni polarity is giving way to multi polarity, as new centres of geo economic power are emerging, as expressed by Putin: "The transformation in the global environment in the recent past, stresses the need for a new international architecture based on a multi polar world."
The future, therefore, provides a much more level playing field for diplomacy to operate, because, for Pakistan, the United States is important as much as, Pakistan is important for the United States.
Pakistan's pivotal position, at the crossroads of Asia is most significant and its strategic importance will be judged, not only, by relating itself to Washington or Moscow, but its ability to harmonize with the shifting centre of gravity.
KISSINGER IDENTIFIES: "Tectonic international upheavals mark our period. The centre of gravity of world affairs is moving to the Pacific and almost all major actors on the international stage are defining new roles for themselves. That transformation is about concept as much as about power."
Pakistan has the choice to serve as the "American fortress, guarding the eastern wall of the Middle East region", as M.J. Akbar thinks, or enter into a new era - a new diplomatic paradigm of cooperation with its neighbour and the global contending centres of power: This strategic choice will correct the strategic error of the past and determine the future of Pakistan and the regional ethos.
The writer is a former Chief of Army Staff.
The right stuff: F-16s to Pakistan is wise decision
Christian Science Monitor
April 11, 2005
The right stuff: F-16s to Pakistan is wise decision
By William B. Milam and Sarmila Bose
WASHINGTON - The negative chorus that has greeted the American decision to sell F-16s to Pakistan is off-key. From the criticism, it is clear that the importance of Pakistan to the long-term interests of the US, the West, and - perhaps less obviously - India, is still poorly understood.
Most observers assume that the decision was motivated by the US need for Pakistani cooperation in the war on terror. Critics emphasize that Pakistan remains a military government with a democratic facade, and that it hasn't been fully cooperative on other issues (notably A.Q. Khan and his nuclear proliferation network). We think America's longer-term interests in the region argue strongly for supporting the decision. Those interests start with Pakistan's geo-strategic and political importance. The second most populous Islamic country, situated next to democratic India, it is also a neighbor of Afghanistan and a gateway to Central Asia.
While we remain disappointed at the halting progress Pakistan has made toward democracy, we do know that it has been there before (albeit unsuccessfully), and probably has a better chance of getting there again in the next decade than many of the Islamic countries of the Middle East that have yet to make a first try.
As a stable Islamic democracy of 150 million people, Pakistan would be a political model in the Muslim world. However, a real democracy requires evolution toward a more "modern" society and the "enlightened moderation" that President Pervez Musharraf continues to advocate. On this, the president needs US help, too - on social development such as improving education and health, and on the political front to head off the religious parties seeking his removal because of his moderation and his cooperation on the war on terror.
A democratic, moderate, and modern Pakistan would be a better neighbor for India, one able to transform - if India were willing - the age-old hostile relationship into something mutually constructive.
Critics may well ask, "Can't we bring this about without selling F-16s to Pakistan?" The answer probably is no, given the history of the US-Pakistani relationship, and the doubts that many Pakistanis harbor about American willingness and ability to sustain a relationship.
This is precisely why the sale of the F-16s is the sort of measure that serves US interests.
First, it helps mitigate the insult caused by the US's shoddy behavior over the F-16s in the 1990s: Taking money and not delivering the goods is bad business and even worse foreign policy. Doing because a nation develops a nuclear program - which Pakistan, India, and many other countries believe they have as much right to develop as the US does - was shaky as well. The US now accepts both as de facto nuclear states.
To make matters worse, it took the US until 1998 to refund the money Pakistan had paid for the planes and, even then, the US refunded $324.6 million of the $463.7 million claim and tried to fob off the rest with gifts in kind, like white wheat.
Second, the sale of the F-16s enhances US ability to influence Mr. Musharraf and his moderate line of governance in the longer term. It proves to the Pakistani military and public that Pakistan's cooperation with the US brings benefits, and that the US understands its security concerns. This in turn promotes trust, undermines anti-Americanism, and signals that the US has learned from the mistake of abandoning Pakistan in 1990 and is now interested in building a long-term relationship.
If used wisely, this enhanced influence may move Musharraf toward a more democratic sensibility, get the US more information on what A.Q. Khan sold to whom, and allow the US a little more persuasive leverage on Pakistan's slow and erratic rapprochement with India, including the hard bargains that have to be struck to settle the Kashmir dispute (with an equal amount of persuasive effort on India to make it face up to what will be necessary from its side).
Third, the longer-term view signaled by the F-16 sale allows the US to focus on other fundamental issues: economic reforms to encourage the greater regional trade and investment necessary for sustainable economic development; social progress through the spread of education, especially for women; and repeal of hudood laws - which are derived from Islamic law - and other obstructions to modernity.
The sale of F-16s in no way detracts from the economic assistance to which the US should remain committed, especially through targeted education programs, which transform society. Nor do planes that were meant to be delivered 15 years ago constitute a destabilizing factor. Rather, they address Pakistan's security concerns, rebuild trust, and signal America's long-term commitment - correctly designing policy on the basis of crucial US interests and the common interests that form the bedrock of any successful alliance.
• William B. Milam, a senior policy scholar at the Woodrow Wilson Center, was US ambassador to Pakistan from 1998 to 2001. Sarmila Bose is visiting associate professor of Asian studies and international affairs at George Washington University.
April 11, 2005
The right stuff: F-16s to Pakistan is wise decision
By William B. Milam and Sarmila Bose
WASHINGTON - The negative chorus that has greeted the American decision to sell F-16s to Pakistan is off-key. From the criticism, it is clear that the importance of Pakistan to the long-term interests of the US, the West, and - perhaps less obviously - India, is still poorly understood.
Most observers assume that the decision was motivated by the US need for Pakistani cooperation in the war on terror. Critics emphasize that Pakistan remains a military government with a democratic facade, and that it hasn't been fully cooperative on other issues (notably A.Q. Khan and his nuclear proliferation network). We think America's longer-term interests in the region argue strongly for supporting the decision. Those interests start with Pakistan's geo-strategic and political importance. The second most populous Islamic country, situated next to democratic India, it is also a neighbor of Afghanistan and a gateway to Central Asia.
While we remain disappointed at the halting progress Pakistan has made toward democracy, we do know that it has been there before (albeit unsuccessfully), and probably has a better chance of getting there again in the next decade than many of the Islamic countries of the Middle East that have yet to make a first try.
As a stable Islamic democracy of 150 million people, Pakistan would be a political model in the Muslim world. However, a real democracy requires evolution toward a more "modern" society and the "enlightened moderation" that President Pervez Musharraf continues to advocate. On this, the president needs US help, too - on social development such as improving education and health, and on the political front to head off the religious parties seeking his removal because of his moderation and his cooperation on the war on terror.
A democratic, moderate, and modern Pakistan would be a better neighbor for India, one able to transform - if India were willing - the age-old hostile relationship into something mutually constructive.
Critics may well ask, "Can't we bring this about without selling F-16s to Pakistan?" The answer probably is no, given the history of the US-Pakistani relationship, and the doubts that many Pakistanis harbor about American willingness and ability to sustain a relationship.
This is precisely why the sale of the F-16s is the sort of measure that serves US interests.
First, it helps mitigate the insult caused by the US's shoddy behavior over the F-16s in the 1990s: Taking money and not delivering the goods is bad business and even worse foreign policy. Doing because a nation develops a nuclear program - which Pakistan, India, and many other countries believe they have as much right to develop as the US does - was shaky as well. The US now accepts both as de facto nuclear states.
To make matters worse, it took the US until 1998 to refund the money Pakistan had paid for the planes and, even then, the US refunded $324.6 million of the $463.7 million claim and tried to fob off the rest with gifts in kind, like white wheat.
Second, the sale of the F-16s enhances US ability to influence Mr. Musharraf and his moderate line of governance in the longer term. It proves to the Pakistani military and public that Pakistan's cooperation with the US brings benefits, and that the US understands its security concerns. This in turn promotes trust, undermines anti-Americanism, and signals that the US has learned from the mistake of abandoning Pakistan in 1990 and is now interested in building a long-term relationship.
If used wisely, this enhanced influence may move Musharraf toward a more democratic sensibility, get the US more information on what A.Q. Khan sold to whom, and allow the US a little more persuasive leverage on Pakistan's slow and erratic rapprochement with India, including the hard bargains that have to be struck to settle the Kashmir dispute (with an equal amount of persuasive effort on India to make it face up to what will be necessary from its side).
Third, the longer-term view signaled by the F-16 sale allows the US to focus on other fundamental issues: economic reforms to encourage the greater regional trade and investment necessary for sustainable economic development; social progress through the spread of education, especially for women; and repeal of hudood laws - which are derived from Islamic law - and other obstructions to modernity.
The sale of F-16s in no way detracts from the economic assistance to which the US should remain committed, especially through targeted education programs, which transform society. Nor do planes that were meant to be delivered 15 years ago constitute a destabilizing factor. Rather, they address Pakistan's security concerns, rebuild trust, and signal America's long-term commitment - correctly designing policy on the basis of crucial US interests and the common interests that form the bedrock of any successful alliance.
• William B. Milam, a senior policy scholar at the Woodrow Wilson Center, was US ambassador to Pakistan from 1998 to 2001. Sarmila Bose is visiting associate professor of Asian studies and international affairs at George Washington University.
Thursday, April 14, 2005
How Leghari dismissed Benazir government
The News, April 15, 2005
How Leghari dismissed Benazir government
Rauf Klasra
ISLAMABAD: Former Army Chief General Jahangir Karamat had leaked the news of the impending dismissal of her government to prime minister Benazir Bhutto in 1996 a day earlier, after agencies bugged a conversation of the then-opposition leader Nawaz Sharif, who had received the confirmation to this effect from the Presidency.
This startling disclosure was made to The News by former Speaker Yousaf Raza Gilani in Adiala, where he is serving a sentence awarded by NAB for unlawfully giving jobs to people of his area during his tenure as speaker from 1993 to 1996.
The composed Gilani is busy writing a book covering important political aspects of his life. Having been a part of three governments since 1985, he says he has many startling events to share with the people of Pakistan to enable them to take a peek into the secret world of politicians, army generals, bureaucrats and others, who decide their fate without people having any knowledge of the same.
Unraveling the nine-year-old political secret, Gilani said on November 4, 1996 the-then army chief General Jahangir Karamat hosted a dinner in honour of the visiting Turkish army chief. He also invited Gilani and ensured he was seated besides him on the table. During the dinner, the general told Gilani that he wanted to send a message to Benazir through him (Gilani) that Leghari had decided to dismiss her government and the deed was about to be done. Karamat said he had already informed the-then secretary defence Salim Abbas Jilani to meet Benazir and tell her that Leghari would dismiss her government in a day or two.
The general told a puzzled and inquisitive Gilani that he had received a tape of conversation held between the opposition leader Nawaz Sharif and a big Saudi government authority in Jeddah. In the tape, Nawaz was heard telling the Saudi authority that "Rais (President Leghari) had agreed to dismiss the government of Benazir and hold new elections."
Karamat told Gilani that in the light of this development, he was ready to play the role of a guarantor between Benazir and Leghari so that the government was not dismissed and some kind of arrangement could be arrived at.
He also told Gilani that Leghari had given a hostile briefing to the IMF delegation against the fiscal policies of Benazir, which clearly showed Leghari's intent to dissolve the assembly.
Gilani rushed to the Prime Minister House at about 12 midnight but was told that she had already gone to sleep. There was thus no option for him but to wait till the next morning. In the meanwhile he rang up secretary defence Salim Jilani to confirm whether he had conveyed Karamat's message to Benazir. Jilani confirmed that he had told her what the general had told him and also about his offer to become a 'guarantor' between Presidency and PM House.
This information relaxed Gilani who went to sleep with the satisfaction that BB had got the message and must have taken some measures in the light of the same. Gilani was one of the few people in Benazir government who defended Leghari before her. He was of the view that Leghari would not dismiss the government. However, the same night around 2am, he received a telephone call from Benazir who told Gilani that he had been proved wrong as his friend Leghari had dissolved the assembly.
After some time, Gilani asked Benazir as to why she had not accepted the offer of Karamat to become guarantor to save her government. Benazir said that she did not want to embarrass a civilian president to take cover of a military general. Moreover, she could not convince herself to accept the role of General Karamat as a guarantor between a civilian prime minister and a civilian president.
Gilani also gave details of another important meeting he had with the-then chief justice of Pakistan Sajjad Ali Shah, who also did not have good terms with Benazir those days.
Before the assemblies were dissolved, the chief justice rang up Gilani and said that he wanted to spend some time with him. Sajjad visited Gilani and within only five minutes of his departure Benazir made a call to Gilani and asked about 'what his friend had told him'. Gilani understood that intelligence agencies were monitoring the movement of Sajjad.
Gilani informed BB that the CJ had come to know from him about the possible reaction of cabinet members and other party leaders in case Leghari dismissed the government. Gilani also told BB that CJ was not happy with the attorney general of Pakistan Qazi Jamil.
Next morning she made another call to Gilani and asked if he had read the newspapers. Gilani replied that he had read the news of the resignation of AG Qazi Jamil. Qazi had been asked by Benazir to resign to appease the furious Sajjad. Gilani picked up the phone and informed the CJ that Benazir had removed Qazi as he wished. But, the chief justice in his dry voice said, 'Sorry Mr Speaker. It is too late now.'
How Leghari dismissed Benazir government
Rauf Klasra
ISLAMABAD: Former Army Chief General Jahangir Karamat had leaked the news of the impending dismissal of her government to prime minister Benazir Bhutto in 1996 a day earlier, after agencies bugged a conversation of the then-opposition leader Nawaz Sharif, who had received the confirmation to this effect from the Presidency.
This startling disclosure was made to The News by former Speaker Yousaf Raza Gilani in Adiala, where he is serving a sentence awarded by NAB for unlawfully giving jobs to people of his area during his tenure as speaker from 1993 to 1996.
The composed Gilani is busy writing a book covering important political aspects of his life. Having been a part of three governments since 1985, he says he has many startling events to share with the people of Pakistan to enable them to take a peek into the secret world of politicians, army generals, bureaucrats and others, who decide their fate without people having any knowledge of the same.
Unraveling the nine-year-old political secret, Gilani said on November 4, 1996 the-then army chief General Jahangir Karamat hosted a dinner in honour of the visiting Turkish army chief. He also invited Gilani and ensured he was seated besides him on the table. During the dinner, the general told Gilani that he wanted to send a message to Benazir through him (Gilani) that Leghari had decided to dismiss her government and the deed was about to be done. Karamat said he had already informed the-then secretary defence Salim Abbas Jilani to meet Benazir and tell her that Leghari would dismiss her government in a day or two.
The general told a puzzled and inquisitive Gilani that he had received a tape of conversation held between the opposition leader Nawaz Sharif and a big Saudi government authority in Jeddah. In the tape, Nawaz was heard telling the Saudi authority that "Rais (President Leghari) had agreed to dismiss the government of Benazir and hold new elections."
Karamat told Gilani that in the light of this development, he was ready to play the role of a guarantor between Benazir and Leghari so that the government was not dismissed and some kind of arrangement could be arrived at.
He also told Gilani that Leghari had given a hostile briefing to the IMF delegation against the fiscal policies of Benazir, which clearly showed Leghari's intent to dissolve the assembly.
Gilani rushed to the Prime Minister House at about 12 midnight but was told that she had already gone to sleep. There was thus no option for him but to wait till the next morning. In the meanwhile he rang up secretary defence Salim Jilani to confirm whether he had conveyed Karamat's message to Benazir. Jilani confirmed that he had told her what the general had told him and also about his offer to become a 'guarantor' between Presidency and PM House.
This information relaxed Gilani who went to sleep with the satisfaction that BB had got the message and must have taken some measures in the light of the same. Gilani was one of the few people in Benazir government who defended Leghari before her. He was of the view that Leghari would not dismiss the government. However, the same night around 2am, he received a telephone call from Benazir who told Gilani that he had been proved wrong as his friend Leghari had dissolved the assembly.
After some time, Gilani asked Benazir as to why she had not accepted the offer of Karamat to become guarantor to save her government. Benazir said that she did not want to embarrass a civilian president to take cover of a military general. Moreover, she could not convince herself to accept the role of General Karamat as a guarantor between a civilian prime minister and a civilian president.
Gilani also gave details of another important meeting he had with the-then chief justice of Pakistan Sajjad Ali Shah, who also did not have good terms with Benazir those days.
Before the assemblies were dissolved, the chief justice rang up Gilani and said that he wanted to spend some time with him. Sajjad visited Gilani and within only five minutes of his departure Benazir made a call to Gilani and asked about 'what his friend had told him'. Gilani understood that intelligence agencies were monitoring the movement of Sajjad.
Gilani informed BB that the CJ had come to know from him about the possible reaction of cabinet members and other party leaders in case Leghari dismissed the government. Gilani also told BB that CJ was not happy with the attorney general of Pakistan Qazi Jamil.
Next morning she made another call to Gilani and asked if he had read the newspapers. Gilani replied that he had read the news of the resignation of AG Qazi Jamil. Qazi had been asked by Benazir to resign to appease the furious Sajjad. Gilani picked up the phone and informed the CJ that Benazir had removed Qazi as he wished. But, the chief justice in his dry voice said, 'Sorry Mr Speaker. It is too late now.'
'Talibanization' fears in Pakistan
The Christian Science Monitor
April 13, 2005 edition
'Talibanization' fears in Pakistan
Activists blocked a co-ed road race last week, as religious parties geared up for local elections in July.
By Owais Tohid
ISLAMABAD, PAKISTAN - More than five years since President Pervez Musharraf's coup, religious extremists are moving to the forefront in challenging Pakistan's political order.
Last week, hundreds of extremist demonstrators armed with bamboo sticks blocked a 10K road race near the finish line to protest the participation of women runners. A gun battle with police ensued, leaving several people wounded.
In a surprise to many here, the incident took place not in the conservative tribal areas, but in the country's Punjab heartland. In reaction, protesters picketed Parliament Monday, calling on the government to "save the society from Talibanization."
Through strikes, protests, and the passage of strict local ordinances, Pakistan's religious parties have grown more brazen in their challenge to the secularization central to President Musharraf's rule. Political analysts are concerned that the sidelining of mainstream parties under may be aiding the radicals in the run-up to local elections in July.
"There is a perception among the think tanks in Washington and Pakistan that both the main opposition parties should be given some room, as their absence would strengthen politically the extremist parties," says Ayesha Haroon, editor of Pakistan's The Nation newspaper. "We may see a more radical path if democratic outlets are not relaxed."
Pakistan's two previous prime ministers, Benazir Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif, live in exile. But in a move widely seen as a positive step toward restoring democracy, Ms. Bhutto's husband was recently released from prison and plans to run her party's affairs in Pakistan.
Mr. Sharif, meanwhile, by some accounts remains barred from politics for another five years. But he still acts as leader of his mainstream party. To prevent losing his conservative constituency to the religious parties, he has thrown his backing behind a nationwide strike called this month by the religious parties.
'Enlightened moderation'
The strikers are protesting President Musharraf's "enlightened moderation" program aimed at bringing liberal values to the society and improving the image of Pakistan.
"Pakistani people are Islamic and they will not allow the government to contradict Islamic teachings," says Hafiz Hussain Ahmed, central leader of the Muttahida Majlis-e-Amal (MMA), an alliance of religious extremist parties. "The enlightenment and moderation are to promote Western culture."
The religious parties gained political victories in the wake of the US wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The MMA now rules the Frontier Province and emerged as a major coalition in the southwestern Balochistan Province.
"The mullahs have already gained political power after attacks on Afghanistan and Iraq by capitalizing anti-US sentiments and are now flexing their muscles on social issues to capture the society," says Shafqat Mehmood, a Lahore-based analyst and a columnist with the English-language newspaper, The News.
In some areas, strict Islamic laws have introduced gender segregation in schools, banned music, and prevented male medical technicians from examining women.
Activists have also defaced billboards that show women models. Religious political leaders also have plans to implement a hisba law, which would set up a religious police force along the lines of the ousted Taliban.
Now Pakistan's religious parties want to extend their gains nationwide through the local government elections scheduled for July.
"They just want to gain political mileage by distorting religion and its values, and are aiming for the local government polls to get hold of administrative control of the society," says Aamir Liaquat, the state minister for religious affairs.
The clean-shaven, young minister also hosts a popular religious TV program, ALIM ONLINE. "Musharraf's vision is to promote moderate thinking and help build a society according to Islamic values where these extremists cannot impose their archaic ideas at gunpoint."
Reform, then reversal
But Musharraf's vision of enlightened moderation has many hurdles to clear in a country where extremists long enjoyed the support of successive governments and the powerful military establishment.
And Musharraf's government has been criticized by rights activists and the media for backing off previously announced reforms, including the abolishment of the draconian Hudood Ordinances, a blasphemy law, and a separate column for religion in passports.
Some argue that the "flip-flops" further strengthen extremists.
"The mullahs have been getting more powerful, partly because of anti-US sentiments and also due to the government's backtracking on liberal stances that it took on social issues. It exposes the chinks in the vision of enlightened moderation," says analyst Mehmood.
For protesting rights activists, Musharraf needs to come down hard on the extremists to cleanse the society.
"The time has come for Musharraf to take the mullahs by the beard," says activist Ambreen. "If he wants our support then he should not come under the pressures of mullahs. Only then can he steer his ship out of the currents of fundamentalism towards enlightened shores."
April 13, 2005 edition
'Talibanization' fears in Pakistan
Activists blocked a co-ed road race last week, as religious parties geared up for local elections in July.
By Owais Tohid
ISLAMABAD, PAKISTAN - More than five years since President Pervez Musharraf's coup, religious extremists are moving to the forefront in challenging Pakistan's political order.
Last week, hundreds of extremist demonstrators armed with bamboo sticks blocked a 10K road race near the finish line to protest the participation of women runners. A gun battle with police ensued, leaving several people wounded.
In a surprise to many here, the incident took place not in the conservative tribal areas, but in the country's Punjab heartland. In reaction, protesters picketed Parliament Monday, calling on the government to "save the society from Talibanization."
Through strikes, protests, and the passage of strict local ordinances, Pakistan's religious parties have grown more brazen in their challenge to the secularization central to President Musharraf's rule. Political analysts are concerned that the sidelining of mainstream parties under may be aiding the radicals in the run-up to local elections in July.
"There is a perception among the think tanks in Washington and Pakistan that both the main opposition parties should be given some room, as their absence would strengthen politically the extremist parties," says Ayesha Haroon, editor of Pakistan's The Nation newspaper. "We may see a more radical path if democratic outlets are not relaxed."
Pakistan's two previous prime ministers, Benazir Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif, live in exile. But in a move widely seen as a positive step toward restoring democracy, Ms. Bhutto's husband was recently released from prison and plans to run her party's affairs in Pakistan.
Mr. Sharif, meanwhile, by some accounts remains barred from politics for another five years. But he still acts as leader of his mainstream party. To prevent losing his conservative constituency to the religious parties, he has thrown his backing behind a nationwide strike called this month by the religious parties.
'Enlightened moderation'
The strikers are protesting President Musharraf's "enlightened moderation" program aimed at bringing liberal values to the society and improving the image of Pakistan.
"Pakistani people are Islamic and they will not allow the government to contradict Islamic teachings," says Hafiz Hussain Ahmed, central leader of the Muttahida Majlis-e-Amal (MMA), an alliance of religious extremist parties. "The enlightenment and moderation are to promote Western culture."
The religious parties gained political victories in the wake of the US wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The MMA now rules the Frontier Province and emerged as a major coalition in the southwestern Balochistan Province.
"The mullahs have already gained political power after attacks on Afghanistan and Iraq by capitalizing anti-US sentiments and are now flexing their muscles on social issues to capture the society," says Shafqat Mehmood, a Lahore-based analyst and a columnist with the English-language newspaper, The News.
In some areas, strict Islamic laws have introduced gender segregation in schools, banned music, and prevented male medical technicians from examining women.
Activists have also defaced billboards that show women models. Religious political leaders also have plans to implement a hisba law, which would set up a religious police force along the lines of the ousted Taliban.
Now Pakistan's religious parties want to extend their gains nationwide through the local government elections scheduled for July.
"They just want to gain political mileage by distorting religion and its values, and are aiming for the local government polls to get hold of administrative control of the society," says Aamir Liaquat, the state minister for religious affairs.
The clean-shaven, young minister also hosts a popular religious TV program, ALIM ONLINE. "Musharraf's vision is to promote moderate thinking and help build a society according to Islamic values where these extremists cannot impose their archaic ideas at gunpoint."
Reform, then reversal
But Musharraf's vision of enlightened moderation has many hurdles to clear in a country where extremists long enjoyed the support of successive governments and the powerful military establishment.
And Musharraf's government has been criticized by rights activists and the media for backing off previously announced reforms, including the abolishment of the draconian Hudood Ordinances, a blasphemy law, and a separate column for religion in passports.
Some argue that the "flip-flops" further strengthen extremists.
"The mullahs have been getting more powerful, partly because of anti-US sentiments and also due to the government's backtracking on liberal stances that it took on social issues. It exposes the chinks in the vision of enlightened moderation," says analyst Mehmood.
For protesting rights activists, Musharraf needs to come down hard on the extremists to cleanse the society.
"The time has come for Musharraf to take the mullahs by the beard," says activist Ambreen. "If he wants our support then he should not come under the pressures of mullahs. Only then can he steer his ship out of the currents of fundamentalism towards enlightened shores."
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)