Our Announcements

Not Found

Sorry, but you are looking for something that isn't here.

Archive for February, 2014

ہم دیکھتے ہیں کالم نگار | روبینہ فیصل

 
 
کالم نگار  |  روبینہ فیصل
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

میکسم گورکی اپنے آفاقی شہرت یافتہ ناول “ماں”میں لکھتا ہے :

“ان لوگوں کو جو ہماری پیٹھ پر سوار ہیںاورجنہوں نے ہماری آنکھیں بند کر رکھی ہیں،ہمیں یہ بتا دینا چاہیئے کہ ہم سب کچھ دیکھ رہے ہیں ۔نہ تو ہم بے وقوف ہیں اور نہ جانورکہ ہمیں اپنا پیٹ بھرنے کے علاوہ اور کچھ چاہیئے ہی نہیں ۔ہم ایسی زندگی بسر کرنا چاہتے ہیں جو انسانوں کے شایانِ شان ہو،ہمیں اپنے دشمنوں پر یہ ثابت کر دینا چاہیئے کہ غلامی کی زندگی جو انہوں نے ہم پر مسلط کر رکھی ہے ،ہمیں ذہنی اعتبار سے انکے برابر بلکہ اونچا کر سکتی ہے۔

اس ناول کے کلاسیکل ہونے کی وجہ ہی یہی ہے کہ یہ ہر زمانے اور ہر ملک کیلئے ہے ۔آج اگر اس میں ہم اپنا چہرہ دیکھنا چاہیں تو باآسانی دیکھ سکتے ہیں ۔ پاکستان یا کسی بھی غریب ملک کے امیرحکمران سمجھتے ہیں کہ عوام گدھے ہیں ،انکے اوپر بوجھ لادو تو بھی احتجاج کیلئے کچھ نہیں بول سکتے حالا نکہ عوام احتجاج کا طریقہ گدھے سے ہی سیکھ لیں تو برا نہیں ۔ جو ضرورت سے زیادہ بوجھ لادے جانے پر اڑ کر ایک جگہ بیٹھ جاتا ہے۔ یہ مجھے یقین ہے کہ وہ دیکھتے اور سمجھتے ضرور ہیں مگر حکمرانوں تک یہ پیغام پہنچانا کہ” ہم دیکھتے ہیں “اس میں شائد وہ ناکام ہیں اسی لئے تو دیدہ دلیری ہے کہ بڑھتی ہی جا رہی ہے ۔

طاقت کرپشن کی طرف لے کر جاتی ہے اور زیادہ طاقت زیادہ کر پشن کی طرف لے کر جاتی ہے ۔ جب انسان کے ہاتھ میں کچھ نہیں ہوتا تو وہ عقل و دانش اور انصاف کی بات کرتا ہے ۔ جب طاقت آجاتی ہے تو تکبر دماغ میں بھرتا ہے اور انسان اپنے ہر فیصلے ،ہر عمل کو انصاف پر مبنی سمجھتا ہے ۔ پاکستان میں ہر نئے آنے والے حکمران نے ٖغریب عوام کاہمدرد سمجھ کر یا کم از کم سمجھنے کا نعرہ لگا کر حکمرانی کا آغاز کیا ۔ کسی نے یہ نہیں کہا کہ میں حکومت اپنے خاندان اور نسلوں کا پیٹ اور سوئس اکائونٹ بھرنے کیلئے کروں گا ۔ کسی نے یہ کہا کہ دولت کا ارتکاز ہم چند ہاتھوں میں کر دینگے ؟ اور غریبوں پر مفلسی ، جہالت اور بیماری کا ارتکاز کر دینگے ؟ حکمران آمریت کی بیساکھی پکڑ کر آیا یا لو لوگوں کے منہ میں جمہوریت کی چوسنی دے کر آیا ،نعرہ اس نے بڑا اچھا لگایا ۔ اسی لئے تو نعروں پر بہلنے والے عوام جمہوریت کا تختہ الٹنے پر بھی مٹھائیاں بانٹتے اور جمہوریت کے آنے پر بھی دھمال ڈالتے ہیں ۔ کاش لوگ کسی بھی لمحے حکمرانوں کو ، لٹیروں کو یہ پیغام دے سکتے کہ” ہم دیکھ رہے ہیں “۔

پرویز مشرف نے جب اکتوبر۹۹میں اقتدار سنبھالا ، تو عوام جمہوری نمائندوں سے عاجز آچکے تھے ، اس لئے سب نے خوشیوں کے شادیانے بجائے اور مشرف کی سوچ کا نہ صرف استقبال کیا بلکہ اس سے بہت زیادہ امیدیں لگا لی تھیں‘ کیوں نہ امیدیں بندھتیں جب مشرف نے فرمایا” میں نے دیکھا کہ عام نچلی سطح پر جمہوریت کا عدم وجود اور پاکستان کی سیاست پر اثر انداز ہونیوالے تین اشخاص یعنی صدر، وزیرِ اعظم اور آرمی چیف پر موثر اور متوازن روک تھام کا نہ ہونا ،دیر پا اور پائیدار جمہوریت کی راہ میں بڑی رکاوٹ تھی ۔ ان خرابیوں کی اصلاح ضروری تھی ۔دو دفعہ کے آزمائے ہوئے ناکام وزرائے اعظم،نواز شریف اور بے نظیر کو تیسری بار موقع نہیں دینا تھا ،انہوں نے قوم کے ساتھ لوٹ مار ، ڈاکا زنی اور بداعتمادی کا ارتکاب کیا تھا ۔پرانے افریقی آمروں کی طرح اپنی اپنی پارٹیوں کے تاحیات چئیرمین بنتے اور وراثتی سیاست کا موجب تھے” ۔

پھرمذید اپنی کتاب ”  سب سے پہلے پاکستان “میں ایک جگہ فرماتے ہیں۔ ہم نے پاکستان میں ایک چھوٹے مراعات یافتہ طبقے کو حکومت کا رواج ڈال دیا ہے ۔جو کبھی بھی جمہوری نہیں ہوتی ،بلکہ وہ بھی آمرانہ ہوتی ہے ۔عام طور پر اس میں مالدارلوگ ہوتے ہیں اور گذرے ہوئے چند سال سے بڑے چور بھی ۔اور یہ سب جمہوریت کے لبادے میں قبائلی اور جاگیردارانہ  سوچ کیساتھ عوام کے نام پر حکومت کرتے ہیں ۔ مشرف نے ٹھیک لکھا کہ الیکشن جمہوریت کی طرف جانے کیلئے ایک گاڑی جیسا ذریعہ ہے ۔مشرف کی اب تک کی گئی باتوں سے کس کو اختلاف؟ ہم نے جمہوریت کو فقط الیکشن سمجھ لیا ہے اور دو خاندانوں کو اپنے سر پر مسلط کیا ہوا ہے ۔ مشرف کا ذکر اسلئے کہ پاکستانی عوام کی یاداشت بہت کمزور ہے ا سلئے بہت پرانی باتیں یاد کروانے کا فائدہ نہیں ،ورنہ پاکستان کی66 سالہ تاریخ آمروں اور سیاست دانوں کے میٹھے میٹھے نعروں سے ہی تو بھری ہوئی ہے ۔حقیقی جمہوریت کی بات کرنیوالے مشرف نے جس طرح کی جمہوریت پاکستان کو دی سب کی یاداشتوں میں تازہ ہوگی ۔ دو خاندانوں سے نجات دلانے کرپشن سے چھٹکارا ، عوام کی حاکمیت کا نعرہ لگا کر گیارہ سال حکمرانی کی اور انہی کرپٹ،جاگیر دا رانہ خاندانوں کیساتھ NRO کر کے پاکستانی عوام کے منہ پر جوتی ماری او پھر نومبر کی ایمرجنسی کس کو یاد نہیں؟ کرپشن ختم کرنے کو NABکا ادارہ بنایا جو خود کرپشن کے سب ریکارڈ توڑ چکا ۔ نیشنل سیکورٹی کونسل کا وجود کہاں گیا ؟یہ سب جھوٹے وعدے اور کرپشن کی دیدہ دلیری ایسی اینٹی بائیوٹک ہے ، جس نے پاکستان کے جسم میں مزاحمت کی اینٹی باڈیز ری ایکشن کے طور پر بنانی بند کر دی ہیں ۔ ورنہ کلرک کی پوسٹ سے اٹھ کر 1500 ادھار لے کر چھوٹا سا بزنس شروع کرنے والا لینڈ مافیا بن کر پاکستان کا نواں امیر ترین اور باعزت آدمی نہ ہوتا ، جو ہر بندے کو خریدنے کی طاقت رکھتا ہو مہران بنک کیس میں یونس حبیب کا دعوی کہ اسکے ذریعے آرمی نے سیاست دانوں کو خریدا تھااور پھر چاروں طرف خاموشی چھا جائے‘ جن پر الزامات لگیں وہ آپکے حکمران بن جائیں ۔ یہ پہلی دفعہ تو نہیں ہوا سوئس بنک میں اکائونٹ، اور کمیشن لے کر معاہدے کرنیوالا ،جسے پوری قوم ڈاکو اور مسٹر دس پرسنٹ کہتی اسے صدر بنا دیا جاتا ہے ۔ حالیہ الیکشن میں کھلم کھلا دھاندلی ہوتی ہے اور سب اسکے نتائج کو تسلیم کرتے ہیں مشرف کے دور میں حدیبیہ مل کیس ،اسحاق ڈار نواز شریف کیخلاف منی لانڈرنگ کا حلفیہ بیان دیتے اور بعد میں یہ کہہ کر کہ مجھ سے دبائو میں لیا گیا ، جان چھڑاتے اور وہی نواز شریف آپکا وزیرِ اعظم اور وہی اسحاق ڈار آپکا وزیر ِ خزانہ ۔  تھامس جیفرسن نے کہا تھا “جمہوریت اس وقت ختم ہوجاتی جب محنت کرنیوالوں سے چھین کر کچھ نہ کرنے والوں کو نوازا جاتا ہے “اس تعریف کی رُو سے تو پاکستان میں چاہے آمریت ہو یا جمہوریت ،عوام کا انجام تو ایک سا ہی او ر ایسے ممالک کی جمہوریت کارل مارکس کے مطابق “محکوم عوام کو کچھ سالوں بعد یہ منتخب کرنے کی اجازت دی جاتی ہے کہ حکمران طبقے میں سے اب کون انکا استحصال کرے” ۔کرپٹ حکمران سمجھتے کہ ہم دیکھتے نہیں بس انہیں یہ بتا دیا جائے کہ ہم دیکھتے ہیں ۔

 

 

 

ڈیجیٹل فارمیٹ میں اس خبر کو پڑھنے کے لئے یہاں کلک کریں

,

No Comments

INDIA TRYING TO SOW DISCORD BETWEEN CHINA & PAKISTAN: READ FROM THE HORSES’S MOUTH:Beijing Mind Behind Pak Terrorism Dr. Rakesh Datta

Beijing Mind Behind Pak Terrorism
Dr. Rakesh Datta

 

According to a recent Pakistan publication named, From a Head, through a Head, to a Head authored by FS Aijazuddin, it was the late Chou-en-lai who suggested to the Pakistani military delegation which called upon him in 1966 that instead of short term wars, Pakistan must prepare for a prolonged conflict with India.

In order to do this, the late Premier advised the visiting Generals to raise a Pakistan Militia Force to act behind the enemy’s rear, to cut off its logistics and destroy strategic centres and prepare to take over operational control, once the first line of defence broke. On the eve of the 1965 War, General Ayub Khan who felt panicked was advised to resort to a long war with India, keeping in view the latter’s numerical superiority in Armed Forces. When the Pakistani President explained that the flat terrain of Punjab was not suitable for mounting guerrilla attacks on an advancing enemy, he was told to use all available natural obstacles like small rivers and high ground as a cover. Above all, the author says, the late Chou-en-lai reassured Ayub Khan that China would be maintaining pressure all the time. When asked categorically for how long, Chou-en-lai said, “As long as necessary, but Pakistan must keep fighting.”

This concept of warfare involving the citizenry of Pakistan was in fact totally alien to the Pakistani Generals. It was contrary to the military doctrine they had learnt at Quetta. However, the use of unorthodox tactics, the late Premier explained, was considered better suited to nations lacking a military-industrial complex. The Chinese had learnt it from their own long drawn struggle for liberation, the author quoted. It thus became clear to Pakistan leaders that if they wanted Chinese support they had to prepare for a prolonged war with India.

In fact Pakistan needed Chinese support much more than that of the United States who did not prove to be a friend in deed in their wars against India. It was notwithstanding the fact that Pakistan was their military partner in CENTO, a frontrunner in the US war against communism besides acting later as a bridge between China and America. China on the other hand was believed to be a natural ally with a commonality of interests. While the friendly relations between the two varied initially depending on each country’s estimate of the utility of the other, their mutual marked hostility towards India had remained constant. The strategic linkage between China and Pakistan was forged in 1963.

For instance, the creation of tension on Sikkim-Tibet border in September 1965 was to immobilise the Indian forces in the eastern sector. During the Bangladesh War, Chinese support to Pakistan was equally vigorous. On the other hand, General Musharraf’s visit to Beijing, more recently, when Pakistan was building defences in Dras, Kargil and Batalik sectors was to take Chinese approval, something that was considered both essential and mandatory.

Further, as the events have unfolded, India is fighting a low intensity war with Pakistan for over two decades, proving the Chinese contention that it is only through prolonged conflict with India that Pakistan could overcome her military handicaps in the numbers game. This was proved by the expedition in Kargil which was another blow to Pakistan. In any direct war a country must possess 3:1 superiority in military but by undertaking irregular warfare against India, endorsing the Chinese strategy, Pakistan has not only surmounted the conventional superiority of India but has also circumvented the Indian nuclear deterrent.

According to General VP Malik, former Indian Army Chief, India has lost nearly 35,000 lives fighting the unending war-like situation. This is more than the casualty rate of all the wars put together, that the country has fought both with China and Pakistan. The Union Law Minister has remarked that India is fighting a high intensity war on its borders with Pakistan, in contrast to the operations being dubbed as being of low intensity nature.

The hidden strategic linkage between China and Pakistan amply proves that everything being done in India in terms of terrorism and cross border infiltration is not Pakistan’s doing alone. The players are different and Pakistan is being used only as a stooge. Imagine a country with a population of sixteen crores, a growth rate of less than 4.6 per cent and a debt of $35billion having let loose a rein of terror in India which is considerably bigger in size, population, resources and capabilities. However, where we draw a blank is on the political front. This factor has even put a question mark on the credibility of our over-a-million army by inanely deploying them on the borders and fatiguing them.

The recent statistics show that there are nearly 2,500 Madrassas in different parts of Pakistan producing nearly 3 lakh fighters annually; ready to kill and die for Islam. Lashkar-e-Toiba and Jaish-e-Mohammed included, over a dozen organisations supported by ISI are engaged in terrorist activities against India on a permanent basis.

In this context, military operations conducted by ISI have taken over the control of secessionist movements in Nagaland, Manipur, Mizoram and Tripura. Earlier, insurgency elements in all these states drew help from China. In Assam too, the problem with ULFA and BODO tribals, which rose in arms through support by China are now ISI active. In Punjab, the crisis generated by the demand for greater decentralisaton of power, culminated in an armed uprising helped by ISI. Once again the country is faced with a fairly high intensity of terrorism with no sign of it abating.

Operations of such magnitude, that too on a sustained basis, naturally cost extra money and resources. Keeping in view Pakistan’s socio-economic perspective, the country is hard-pressed in terms of economic growth, high inflation, rising debt, increasing poverty, growing unemployment and low literacy. It is, therefore, hard to accept that Pakistan is managing the confrontationist posture against India exclusively, without getting help from outside.

On the other hand, the thrust of Chinese policy continues to rest on Mao’s dictum that “Power grows from the barrel of a gun.” However, in its bid to prove to the world that China has matured politically, it has refrained from entering into a direct clash with other nations, unlike in the past. But given the geostrategic location of India, China has continued to nibble at India, in order to try and contain it at the level of a sub continental power.

In this context, going by their policy of indirect approach of using Pakistan to maintain constant pressure on India, China has been giving huge military aid to Karachi. Since September 1965 China has supplied Pakistan complete equipment for two infantry divisions. The ordnance included battle tanks, fighter aircrafts, naval ships and submarines. Later during General Tikka Khan’s visit to Beijing in January 1978, talks were initiated for supply of missiles to Pakistan. According to New York Times, China’s rivalry with India was behind its arming of Pakistan with missiles. The report added, that, if China helped Pakistan secure medium-range missiles they would balance missiles that India, a large and more advanced country, has already developed for itself. Chinese technicians have been seen in Pakistan for the production of missiles including M-11, rocket motors, propellants and guidance system. Pakistan has also been seen testing Shaheen missile which has increased its ability to strike India.

Again, as a matter of high strategy, the Chinese resolve to further dig into the subcontinent, has helped Pakistan in the construction of Karakoram highway by providing most of the funds and manpower. In the event of Sino-Pak combined thrust on India, this highway will pose a military and political threat to India’s security by making Srinagar-Leh road extremely vulnerable. In this regard Chinese clandestine help in providing logistics to Pakistan Army during latter’s adventures in Kargil could not be ruled out, due to proximity factor.

Of late Chinese covert assistance to Pakistan’s nuclear weapon programme has completely aborted India’s plan of taking a lead in acquiring effective nuclear deterrence in the region after China; instead it has put India more in a state of quandary vis-à-vis Pakistan. According to US military sources, Chinese nuclear scientists are not only working in Pakistan’s nuclear facilities but have also enabled Islamabad to produce a bomb. China has set up 300 mw Chashma nuclear plant besides helping establish 40 mw Khushab Plutonium producing reactor and facility for extracting weapon grade Plutonium from spent fuel. It was intended to accord Pakistan taking a leap jump over India in nuclear technology and this became quite apparent when Pakistan carried out series of nuclear tests including thermonuclear as a sequel to India’s Shakti-II at Pokhran.

Both the countries have travelled a long way since 1962. Though there has not been a repeat of any direct conflict between the two, Beijing has persistently maintained the posture of a strategic adversary to India. After all, China continues to occupy 14,600 sq miles of Indian territory annexed during the Sino-Indian War and is certainly in no mood to return it. She is a formidable neighbour and a security risk. Of late, China has started hitting at our domestic industry by flooding Indian markets with Chinese goods. We may dismiss this but cannot ignore it completely.

So when George Fernandes, the Defence Minister of India speaks out on China being a potential enemy of India – echoing the voice of late Sardar Patel, that India has to reckon with a communist China that has definite ambitions and aims not very friendly disposed towards us – it carries substance, however awkward it may appear in diplomatic jargon.

At the same time, the present long battle over Kashmir which Pakistan is fighting with India through fomenting terrorist activities by cross border infiltration is the last straw in the series of its devious game plan as suggested by China.

 

http://www.satp.org/satporgtp/publication/idr/vol_17(2)/rakesh_datta.htm

 

, ,

No Comments

THRU TERRORISM EXPORTED VIA AFGHANISTAN; INDIA DESTROYING PAK ECONOMY! IS THE WORLD LISTENING?

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 

Unknown-23 

 

PAKISTAN’S ECONOMY HIT HARD BY WAR ON TERROR

Terrorism in Pakistan has killed thousands, injured tens of thousands – and cost the country billions

By Sohail Ahmed

2010-06-18

 
 

 Terrorism in Pakistan cost the nation 6% of its Gross Domestic Product (GDP) in 2009-10, and has killed nearly 9,000 Pakistanis in the past eight years. (report dated 2010, Pakistan’s death toll has reached over 30,000 civilians killed include by drone strikes)

  • A Pakistani paramilitary soldier stands beside a road during a strike against a suicide bomb attack in Karachi  January 1. Pakistan’s financial hub has been widely affected by terrorist activities. Pakistan’s Economic  Survey report says terrorism has taken a heavy toll on the economy. [RIZWAN TABASSUM/AFP/Getty Images]

    A Pakistani paramilitary soldier stands beside a road during a strike against a suicide bomb attack in Karachi January 1. Pakistan’s financial hub has been widely affected by terrorist activities. Pakistan’s Economic Survey report says terrorism has taken a heavy toll on the economy. [RIZWAN TABASSUM/AFP/Getty Images]

Terrorism has taken a heavy toll on Pakistan’s economy since 2001, according to Pakistan’s 2009-2010 economic survey report released earlier this month by the Ministry of Finance.

Militants intensified their campaign in 2009, specifically targeting Pakistan’s urban centres, according to the interior ministry’s National Crisis Management Cell. Officials recorded 1,906 terror attacks in the country, resultng in 1,835 deaths and 5,194 injuries, from January 2009 to April 2010.

Pakistan has become an epicentre of terrorist activity since late 2001. At least 8,141 terrorist attacks have killed 8,875 civilians and law-enforcement personnel, and injured 20,675, between the end of 2002 and April 2010.

Terrorism cost Pakistan more than US $43 billion between 2001 and 2010, the ministry reported. Its impact on the economy has greatly increased since 2007-08, according to the report, as the Pakistani army has begun large-scale military operations in the country’s tribal areas.

Casualty tolls do not capture the cumulative effects of terrorism on the country, however.

Lives, homes and incomes have been disrupted, and education jeopardized for virtually a whole generation of school-age children in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and the Federally Administered Tribal, according to the report.

A decline in GDP growth, reductions in investment, lost exports, unemployment and the depreciation and inflation of incomes and exchange rates are the most affected areas of Pakistan’s economy.

The price of security-related and civil relief operations, for instance, demonstrates the magnitude of terrorism’s direct costs: Pakistan has spent an additional US $4 billion since 2007, the ministry reports, or 2.4% of the average GDP.

The government has also spent US $600m during this fiscal year to help the more than 3m people displaced by terrorism and counter-terrorism operations.

Pakistan may face a “permanent” degree of welfare loss due to the diversion of development spending toward the security budget, capital flight and brain drain, and due to the trade diversion it has suffered since 2001, according to the report.

Total energy consumption declined 5.2% in 2009 versus 2008, and consumption in the industry sector fell by 11.7%, as a result of the energy crisis, according to the report.

Electricity use in the industrial sector fell by 6.5% while gas consumption by the industrial sector declined by 8.2%.

 

COMPLETE REPORT

http://www.satp.org/satporgtp/countries/pakistan/database/bombblast2012.htm

Summary

Pakistan is facing the menace of terrorism that is eroding the social structure, economic developments and political system. The immediate costs of terrorist acts are loss of human lives, destruction of property and infrastructure and depression of short-term economic activity. Additionally, terrorism creates uncertainty, reduces confidence and increases risk perceptions leading to lower rates of investment and lower economic growth. Pakistan has not only lost precious lives and infrastructure, but also has borne a loss of around $ 35-40 billion since 2001-02. Both the war on terror as well as rehabilitation of internally displaced people (IDPs) consumed a big chunk of the government’s financial resources, thus widening the fiscal deficit and halting economic growth. With the threat of terrorism, normal businesses require more time and extra security for their dealings and consumption activities. Thus, terrorism typically leads to a general slowdown in economic activity. The absence of primary data makes estimating the cost of terrorism to Pakistan even more complex. The present study should thus be treated as an attempt to fill the knowledge gap in this area, encouraging more sophisticated analyses for better frameworks and conflict cost estimations. In analyzing the costs of terrorism, this paper focuses on economic cost of terrorism in Pakistan from a multi-dimensional perspective while highlighting the impact on GDP growth. Additional emphasis will also be placed on FDI, tourism, as well as the social sector.

, ,

No Comments

Are we wrong about Pakistan?

Are we wrong about Pakistan?

When Peter Oborne first arrived in Pakistan, he expected a ‘savage’ back water scarred by terrorism. Years later, he describes the Pakistan that is barely documented – and that he came to fall in love with

The beautiful Shandur Valley of Pakistan

Image 1 of 2
The beautiful Shandur Valley of Pakistan Photo: GETTY
 
 
 

11:30AM GMT 28 Feb 2012

 

 

 

It was my first evening in Pakistan. My hosts, a Lahore banker and his charming wife, wanted to show me the sights, so they took me to a restaurant on the roof of a town house in the Old City.

My food was delicious, the conversation sparky – and from our vantage point we enjoyed a perfect view of the Badshahi Mosque, which was commissioned by the emperor Aurangzeb in 1671.

It was my first inkling of a problem. I had been dispatched to write a report reflecting the common perception that Pakistan is one of the most backward and savage countries in the world. This attitude has been hard-wired into Western reporting for years and is best summed up by the writing of the iconic journalist Christopher Hitchens. Shortly before he died last December, Hitchens wrote a piece in Vanity Fair that bordered on racism.

Pakistan, he said, was “humourless, paranoid, insecure, eager to take offence and suffering from self-righteousness, self-pity and self-hatred”. In summary, asserted Hitchens, Pakistan was one of the “vilest and most dangerous regions on Earth”.

Since my first night in that Lahore restaurant I have travelled through most of Pakistan, got to know its cities, its remote rural regions and even parts of the lawless north. Of course there is some truth in Hitchens’s brash assertions. Since 2006 alone, more than 14,000 Pakistani civilians have been killed in terrorist attacks. The Pakistan political elite is corrupt, self-serving, hypocritical and cowardly – as Pakistanis themselves are well aware. And a cruel intolerance is entering public discourse, as the appalling murder last year of minorities minister Shahbaz Bhatti after he spoke out for Christians so graphically proves. Parts of the country have become impassable except at risk of kidnap or attack.

Yet the reality is far more complex. Indeed, the Pakistan that is barely documented in the West – and that I have come to know and love – is a wonderful, warm and fabulously hospitable country. And every writer who (unlike Hitchens), has ventured out of the prism of received opinion and the suffocating five-star hotels, has ended up celebrating rather than denigrating Pakistan.

A paradox is at work. Pakistan regularly experiences unspeakable tragedy. The most recent suicide bombing, in a busy market in northwestern Pakistan, claimed 32 lives and came only a month after another bomb blast killed at least 35 people in the Khyber tribal district on January 10. But suffering can also release something inside the human spirit. During my extensive travels through this country, I have met people of truly amazing moral stature.

Take Seema Aziz, 59, whom I met at another Lahore dinner party, and who refuses to conform to the Western stereotype of the downtrodden Pakistani female. Like so many Pakistanis, she married young: her husband worked as a manager at an ICI chemical plant. When her three children reached school age, she found herself with lots of time on her hands. And then something struck her.

It was the mid-Eighties, a time when Pakistan seemed captivated by Western fashion. All middle-class young people seemed to be playing pop music, drinking Pepsi and wearing jeans. So together with her family, Seema decided to set up a shop selling only locally manufactured fabrics and clothes.

The business, named Bareeze, did well. Then, in 1988, parts of Pakistan were struck by devastating floods, causing widespread damage and loss of life, including in the village where many of the fabrics sold by Bareeze were made. Seema set out to the flood damaged area to help. Upon arrival, she reached an unexpected conclusion. “We saw that the victims would be able to rebuild their homes quite easily but we noticed that there was no school. Without education, we believed that there would be no chance for the villagers, that they would have no future and no hope.”

So Seema set about collecting donations to build a village school. This was the beginning of the Care Foundation, which today educates 155,000 underprivileged children a year in and around Lahore, within 225 schools.

I have visited some of these establishments and they have superb discipline and wonderful teaching – all of them are co-educational. The contrast with the schools provided by the government, with poorly-motivated teachers and lousy equipment, is stark. One mullah did take exception to the mixed education at one of the local schools, claiming it was contrary to Islamic law. Seema responded by announcing that she would close down the school. The following day, she found herself petitioned by hundreds of parents, pleading with her to keep it open. She complied. Already Care has provided opportunities for millions of girls and boys from poor backgrounds, who have reached adulthood as surgeons, teachers and business people.

I got the sense that her project, though already huge, was just in its infancy. Seema told me: “Our systems are now in place so that we can educate up to one million children a year.” With a population of over 170 million, even one million makes a relatively small difference in Pakistan. Nevertheless, the work of Care suggests how easy it would be to transform Pakistan from a relatively backward nation into a south-east Asian powerhouse.

Certainly, it is a country scarred by cynicism and corruption, where rich men do not hesitate to steal from the poor, and where natural events such as earthquakes and floods can bring about limitless human suffering. But the people show a resilience that is utterly humbling in the face of these disasters.

In the wake of the floods of 2009 I travelled deep into the Punjab to the village of Bhangar to gauge the extent of the tragedy. Just a few weeks earlier everything had been washed away by eight-feet deep waters. Walking into this ruined village I saw a well-built man, naked to the waist, stirring a gigantic pot. He told me that his name was Khalifa and that he was preparing a rice dinner for the hundred or more survivors of the floods.

The following morning I came across Khalifa, once again naked to the waist and sweating heavily. Pools of stagnant water lay around. This time he was hard at work with a shovel, hacking out a new path into the village to replace the one that had been washed away.

A little later that morning I went to the cemetery to witness the burial of a baby girl who had died of a gastric complaint during the night. And there was Khalifa at work, this time as a grave digger.

Khalifa was a day labourer who was lucky to earn $2 (£1.26) a day at the best of times. To prejudiced Western commentators, he may have appeared a symbol of poverty, bigotry and oppression. In reality, like the courageous volunteers I met working at an ambulance centre in Karachi last year, a city notorious for its gangland violence, he represents the indomitable spirit of the Pakistani people, even when confronted with a scale of adversity that would overpower most people in the West.

As I’ve discovered, this endurance expresses itself in almost every part of life. Consider the Pakistan cricket team which was humiliated beyond endurance after the News of the World revelations about “spot-fixing” during the England tour of 2010. Yet, with the culprits punished, a new captain, Misbah-ul-Haq has engineered a revival. In January I flew to Dubai to witness his team humiliate England in a three-match series that marked a fairy-tale triumph.

Beyond that there is the sheer beauty of the country. Contrary to popular opinion, much of Pakistan is perfectly safe to visit so long as elementary precautions are taken, and, where necessary, a reliable local guide secured. I have made many friends here, and they live normal, fulfilled family lives. Indeed there is no reason at all why foreigners should not holiday in some of Pakistan’s amazing holiday locations, made all the better by the almost complete absence of Western tourists.

Take Gilgit-Baltistan in the north, where three of the world’s greatest mountain ranges – the Hindu Kush, the Himalayas and the Karakorams — meet. This area, easily accessible by plane from the Pakistani capital of Islamabad, is a paradise for climbers, hikers, fishermen and botanists. K2 – the world’s second-highest mountain – is in Gilgit, as are some of the largest glaciers outside the polar regions.

Go to Shandur, 12,000ft above sea level, which every year hosts a grand polo tournament between the Gilgit and Chitral polo teams in a windswept ground flanked by massive mountain ranges. Or travel south to Mohenjo-Daro and Harappa, cradle of the Indus Valley civilisation which generated the world’s first urban culture, parallel with Egypt and ancient Sumer, approximately 5,000 years ago.

Of course, some areas of Pakistan are dangerous. A profile of Karachi – Pakistan’s largest city and commercial capital – in Time magazine earlier this year revealed that more than 1,000 people died in 2011 in street battles fought between heavily armed supporters of the city’s main political parties. Karachi is plagued by armed robbery, kidnapping and murder and, in November last year, was ranked 216 out of 221 cities in a personal-safety survey carried out by the financial services firm Mercer.

But isn’t it time we acknowledged our own responsibility for some of this chaos? In recent years, the Nato occupation of Afghanistan has dragged Pakistan towards civil war. Consider this: suicide bombings were unknown in Pakistan before Osama bin Laden’s attack on the Twin Towers in September 2001. Immediately afterwards, President Bush rang President Musharraf and threatened to “bomb Pakistan into the stone age” if Musharraf refused to co-operate in the so-called War on Terror.

The Pakistani leader complied, but at a terrible cost. Effectively the United States president was asking him to condemn his country to civil war by authorising attacks on Pashtun tribes who were sympathetic to the Afghan Taliban. The consequences did not take long, with the first suicide strike just six weeks later, on October 28.

Many write of how dangerous Pakistan has become. More remarkable, by far, is how safe it remains, thanks to the strength and good humour of its people. The image of the average Pakistani citizen as a religious fanatic or a terrorist is simply a libel, the result of ignorance and prejudice.

The prejudice against Pakistan dates back to before 9/11. It is summed up best by the England cricketer Ian Botham’s notorious comment that “Pakistan is the sort of place every man should send his mother-in-law to, for a month, all expenses paid”. Some years after Botham’s outburst, the Daily Mirror had the inspired idea of sending Botham’s mother-in-law Jan Waller to Pakistan – all expenses paid – to see what she made of the country.

Unlike her son-in-law, Mrs Waller had the evidence of her eyes before her: “The country and its people have absolutely blown me away,” said the 68-year-old grandmother.

After a trip round Lahore’s old town she said: “I could not have imagined seeing some of the sights I have seen today. They were indefinable and left me feeling totally humbled and totally privileged.” She concluded: “All I would say is: ‘Mothers-in-law of the world, unite and go to Pakistan. Because you’ll love it’. Honestly!”

Mrs Waller is telling the truth. And if you don’t believe me, please visit and find out for yourself.

Reference

Feb 28,2012

No Comments

Come Back, Mr Prime Minister

By Saroop Ijaz

Published: February 1, 2014
 
 
 
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The writer is a lawyer and partner at Ijaz and Ijaz Co in Lahore [email protected]

US President Harry S Truman kept a sign at his desk which said, ‘The buck stops here’. The idea behind the sign and the phrase is really simple, namely that there is one individual atop of the government who has to make decisions and accept responsibility for them. It does not mean micromanaging; it just signifies a sense of moral responsibility and seriousness. One cannot be certain of what sign, if any, is on the desk of Prime Minister Mian Nawaz Sharif. An appropriate one would, however, be ‘This is not my problem’, since this is Mian Sahib’s approach and answer to most questions. Mian Sahib is on a leave of absence and meanwhile, the ‘buck’ is in perpetual circular rotation.

The question of talks or not is an ideological one. However, once the decision is made, as in the present case of conducting talks, then the federal government in general and Mian Sahib in particular, should hold the baton and accept both the potential success and failure of the strategy. The prime minister has no intention of doing that. The formation of a committee is all warm and fuzzy and gives the impression of doing something; however, that is all it is, giving the impression, etc. Whereas much can be said about the composition of the committee and the individuals selected, one can leave it to those who know these individuals better. However, one general principle seems to have been very deliberately compromised, namely representation.

Talks, everybody now agrees are the ‘solution’. Very well, yet, it might be useful to remind ourselves of what the ‘problem’ is. It is a conflict between the ‘State’ and ‘Non- state’ actors. Where exactly is the ‘State’ in this committee? It is not only that the other party to the negotiations might not take the committee in the present form seriously. More significantly, the prime minister, the government and perhaps, the state is now just afraid. Afraid, of course, of armed adversaries, however even more, afraid of ‘failure’.

That is what it is; Mian Sahib is so afraid of failure, of taking the wrong decisions, that he has made the decision of making no decisions. If there are to be negotiations, they have to be led by the federal government and the composition of the committee should represent that. Death by inaction is what stares us plainly in the face.Unknown-49

Mian Nawaz Sharif was a businessman before he was a politician. Mian Shahbaz Sharif is nothing, if not a very good administrator/manager. Mian Shahbaz Sharif runs a province through the bureaucracy (side point, hence there are very poor betting odds for any civil service reform or even talk of it) and technocrats and has little patience for public representatives or the tedium of dealing with the provincial assembly, etc. The ‘Sharif doctrine’ is to delegate it to someone else, to get rid of the problem by making it someone else’s problem, to bring in the experts, basically do anything except do something yourself. Above all, the ‘Sharif doctrine’ is to privatise; to privatise not only the airlines and Railways, but national security, even the very existence of the State itself. Alas, if only peace was as easy as engaging the right consultants or shall we say, contractors for the task. Conflicts require leaders, which are bit more than corporate managers.

The PML-N went to the elections on a non-ideological campaign. The promise was never any higher principle or rights, it was efficiency. Let us for the moment, defer comment on how efficiently the State is being run (or perhaps, it is a rhetorical question to begin with). However, there is a spectacular confusion on efficiency and the perception of it. The PML-N knows marketing and the value of optics. However, the campaign season is over; and Mian Sahib now finds himself with a c
ountry to run and the country can’t seem to find Mian Sahib. The answer to the question of militancy lies not in the selection process of a dream team of master negotiators. It lies in having the nerve to make tough choices and sticking by the consequences. Balochistan will not become an island of tranquillity and peace by metro buses and motorways. The power crisis or circular debt will not go away by finding the right whizz tycoons to take care of the matter. All of this requires serious policymaking and owning up to the consequences of these policies. Don’t hold your breath for that to happen anytime soon.

Exhibit A is Chaudhry Nisar Ali Khan. The interior minister may look all business and no nonsense. Yet, the fact of the matter remains, that a counterterrorism policy was promised and was supposed to be delivered long ago, and it has not. There is no good reason for Chaudhry Nisar Ali not to be a part of the negotiating team. He is in charge of law and order, and this is what the committee seeks to address. Additionally, he will have some explaining to do if they fail, unlike the present members of the committee, who will if God forbid all of this fails, can and will shrug their shoulders and go home. Freelance experts are not going to get us through this.

The prime minister and the PML-N are the most pronounced examples of inertia and governance without accountability. However, on the question of talks, while most agree that there should be talks, none appear willing to volunteer themselves for the task. Mr Imran Khan should offer to help. Perhaps, publicly insist on being part of the negotiation process and ask for specific powers and authority to conduct these negotiations. The catch here is, if Mr Khan does that, then he accepts the consequences of whatever happens when the talks are over. Mr Khan does not want that. He wants to be the bystander critic. He is in for tough competition, since it seems we have a bystander prime minister to match.

Mr Prime Minister, come back to your job, all is forgiven. The people of this country voted for you to be a leader and it is only reasonable to expect that you at least try.

Courtesy:

Published in The Express Tribune, February 2nd, 2014.

 

 

,

No Comments