Archive for category Nawaz Sharif & Kashmiri Biradari

admin

A fractured central bank

May 03, 2014

Dr Muhammad Yaqub, former Governor of the State Bank of Pakistan.:

The State Bank of Pakistan (SBP) has been handed over to a governor and a deputy governor whose academic training is not even remotely related to monetary economics and central banking functions. Moreover, their work experience has been confined to retail commercial banking which is of no use or relevance to central banking.

The senior deputy governor, who had acquired some expertise in banking supervision by serving for a considerable time in staff positions at the SBP, has been sidelined with the result that vital monetary policy and bank regulatory decisions will basically be made by the two raw hands at the helm of SBP affairs. These two have to rub shoulders with competent and experienced counterparts from other countries, both bilaterally and in multilateral settings, and are bound to cut a sorry figure.

These appointments, based on political expediency and personal loyalty rather than professional competence and personal integrity, can enable the rulers to exploit national financial resources without SBP hindrance and are hurtful for institution-building and macroeconomic management. Imagine what would happen to the defence of the country if a poorly trained head of a private security company is appointed as the chief of army staff. One side effect of undeserving appointments at the top of the SBP is that these vital positions will gradually degenerate to become subservient to the illegal dictates of the appointing authorities.

The SBP governor is the regulator of the banking system and custodian of monetary stability and is important for prudent economic management of the country and a sound financial system. He/she is supposed to be non-political, professionally qualified and personally strong to face and overcome challenges.

With no professional standing or stature or relevant work experience, a governor or a deputy governor appointed on political considerations will be unable to measure up to his/her difficult task. The situation becomes all the more grim with an accountant finance minister and a businessman prime minister using their political muscles to keep the central bank and the banking system under their control.

With the present weak and vulnerable SBP management, the political leaders would have a free hand in starting yellow cab schemes, doling out subsidised loans to their fellow businessmen in the name of investment promotion, giving collateral-free loans to young people in the name of employment generation, writing off large loans to their cronies, printing notes to finance their low-priority prestige projects and setting the level of interest rates to subsidise their own businesses or those of the business community at large rather than to promote macroeconomic stability.

These appointments are also a slap on the face of the IMF and expose its hollow statements about strengthening of the operational autonomy of the SBP. It has been stressing in its reports and press statements the importance of an operationally autonomous and professionally competent SBP for monetary and price stability and advocating further legislative reforms to enhance it.

Their conditionality for enactment of more laws may be met on paper but there will be no qualified and courageous management team at the SBP to enforce them. It will change nothing in reality but the IMF staff will be able to show to their executive board that the government has enacted new laws to enhance SBP autonomy and score some career-enhancing brownie points within their own organisation.

It is also interesting and unusual that the new governor issued a press release a day after the assumption of office with some unfounded observations about the existing ‘monetary stability’ and prospects “to make further strides in improving economic welfare, while ensuring macroeconomic and financial stability”.

The press release claimed that the “State Bank had been playing an active role in improving the monetary and financial conditions together with the betterment of overall economy at large”. In making this statement, the honourable governor must be talking about a country other than Pakistan.

In the last decade, the economy of Pakistan has suffered from stagflation which combined in it a low growth and high inflation. One of the main reasons for this state of affairs was the inability of the SBP to stop the government from forcing it to print excessive currency notes and pre-empting the bulk of commercial bank credit to finance fiscal operations. The money supply was allowed to grow at a rate five times faster than the rate of growth of the economy creating intense inflationary pressures. For the first time in the history of the country, the annual rate of inflation has been running in double digits for almost a decade.

This happened because of excessive government bank borrowing crowding out the private sector, which is the real engine of economic growth, and the government forcing the SBP to keep real interest rates in negative territory. It is very unfortunate that a period of rapid money creation due to excessive government bank borrowing and negative real interest rates has been characterised by the SBP governor as one of “monetary stability”.

Going forward, the governor is not committing to working off inflationary pressures by perusing a prudent monetary policy as required by the SBP Act, but rather to hold “workshops for media persons to carve out a stronger interface between SBP and people of Pakistan”.

The people of Pakistan have been burdened with a high rate of inflation, rising unemployment, grinding poverty and mounting internal and external debt and are not interested in carving out a stronger interface with the central bank, which has contributed to their problems by its incompetence and lack of effectiveness.

What is really needed is not a stronger interface between the SBP and the people of Pakistan but rather between the governor and central banking functions prescribed in economics textbooks. Moreover, before making more monetary data available to the people, he should devote some time in studying the available data and understand what is going on in the monetary sector.

The central banks of the world have moved on to conducting monetary policies based on inflation targeting and regulating the banking system through stress testing of individual banks. The SBP is stuck in the ceremony of announcing the policy rate and issuing outdated prudential regulations. It is about time the SBP catches up with other central banks with whom the governor will have to interact, both bilaterally and in international settings.

The governor has also reiterated the “SBP’s commitment in working to achieve its national goals of maintaining monetary and financial stability”. He may or may not understand what monetary and financial stability means in economics or in the real world but let us remind him what he will have to do to honour this commitment.

He needs to become conversant with the legal requirements stipulated in the SBP Act for the formulation and conduct of a monetary policy to regulate “the expansion of liquidity” in the economy so as to ensure a sharp reduction in inflationary pressures. As required by the SBP Act, it must formulate monetary policy without excessive accommodation of government by using its authority to “determine and enforce” prudent limits on government borrowing from the SBP.

The governor will need to safeguard the jurisdiction of the central bank and conduct monetary policy with the main aim of controlling growth in money supply to reduce inflation and channel commercial bank credit to the private sector to promote economic growth.

He also has to do a better job of regulating the banking system by effectively enforcing prudential regulations to direct the commercial banks to undertake more intensely their financial intermediation function through improvement in efficiency and enhancement of competition and narrowing of the interest spread. It is his job to ensure that commercial banks serve the interest of the country rather than earn fat profits by locking their deposits in the purchase of government securities.

Most importantly, the governor should not blindly accept government instructions to print more currency notes but be prepared to ‘determine and enforce’ a limit on its borrowing from the SBP, if necessary.

The writer is a former governor of the State Bank of Pakistan.

Email: [email protected]

admin

WHY IS NAWAZ SHARIF CALLED THE COWARD OF KARGIL ?

KARGIL WAR WAS A VICTORY FOR

PAKISTAN ARMY,EVEN FROM INDIAN ARMY’S INQUIRY

PMLN thrives on lies, to make them credible, they repeat the same lies over and over again. Another ploy to protect their lies,is that they send Jiyalas like Pervez Rashid, Saad Rafiq, Abid Sher Ali, Khwaja Asif. Shahid Khaqan Abbasi to defend the lies in the Media. In this effort GEO, is in the forefront. Across the Border,Indian Media is Hoarse About the Great Victories of Indian Armies in Kaargil. Except, the Truth About Indian Army slipped out from their own Press Release that they were running out of coffins for their dead soldiers and had ordered over 4,500 caskets from US. Gen.Pervez Musharraf had the moral courage to go in front of the most vicious Indian TV Channels and like a momin Musalman Challenged the Indian lies about the Kargil War. Pakistani nation should be proud to have avesged at least partially, the loss of E.Pakistan, by proving the vulnerability and incompetence of Indian Army,which had to cashier out of Indian Army Several Generals,including the Corp Commander of the INDIAN ARMY’S XV CORP

QUOTE FROM INDIAN ARMY INQUIRY ON KARGIL LOSSES IN RESPECTED

INDIAN MAGAZINE OUTLOOK

“The Point 5353 fiasco is just one of several examples of the complete absence of strategic thought that preceded the Kargil war, and evidently proceeded apace thereafter. None has, however, been punished for these errors. Aul has received a plum posting in the Andaman and Nicobar Islands, as have his subordinates. Major-General V.S. Budhwar, responsible for many of the tactical errors that led to the Kargil war, has faced no form of censure. Neither has the then 15 Corps Commander, Kishan Pal, who insisted until late May that the Pakistan intrusion was “local and would be contained locally”. Only one official of any consequence, then 121 Brigade Commander Surinder Singh, has faced disciplinary action.

That some 30 court martial proceedings are pending against officers of the rank of Major and below illustrates just who the Indian army establishment has chosen to make scapegoats of. Documents to which Frontline has access make clear that responsibility for events lies higher.[Frontline]

– See more at: http://pragmatic.nationalinterest.in/2009/08/13/the-questions-from-kargil/#sthash.Yaq5RmSQ.dpuf

KARGIL WAS A BIG SUCCESS FOR PAKISTAN: MUSHARRAF

Nawaz Sharif is mainly responsible for spreading the rumour, that FCNA was losing at Kargil. He keeps harping the same tune, even, though some Indian generals have reluctantly accepted it as a defeat of Indian Army. But, this coward leaves no opportunity to bad mouth Kargil victory. Nawaz Sharif is an enemy of Pakistan. He puts his own interests above national interests. He felt threatened by Pakistan Army’s spectacular victory in Kargil War. Cowardly, Kashmiri turncoat Nawaz Sharif was shocked by success of Pakistan;s Mujahedin of FCNA, who caused 3000 Indian Army Casualties, including the loss of two planes, death of one IAF Pilot and capture of Indian Pilot Lt.Nachikita by Pak Army. Being a US CIA Agent Nwaz was afraid that Musharraf and the Army would get all the glory, he ran to his patron President Clinton.

Nawaz Sharif, the Coward of Kargil, has desecrated the Sacrifices of Northern Light Regiment,formerly FCNA.He has mocked the bravery of soldiers from Gilgit and Hunza who bloodied the noses of two plus Indian Army Corps and provided a decisive victory to Pakistan Army. And most importantly created a morbid fear in the hearts of Indian Army and Political Establishment,not to take on Pakistan Armed Forces and the Pakistani nation.

Islamabad: Claiming that his 1999 Kargil operation was a “big success militarily”, former Pakistani president Pervez Musharraf has said that if the then prime minister Nawaz Sharif had not visited the US, the Pakistani Army would have “conquered” 300 square miles of India.

He defended his action to launch the operation in Kargil in the wake of fresh allegations that he masterminded the intrusions. Referring to Lt Gen (retired) Shahid Aziz’s allegations that he had kept other military commanders in the dark about the operation, Musharraf said, “Telling everyone about it was not necessary at all”. He claimed Aziz had an “imbalanced personality” and had resorted to character assassination by making these accusations.

“We lost the Kargil war, which was a big success militarily, because of (then premier) Nawaz Sharif…If he had not visited the US, we would have conquered 300 square miles of India,” Musharraf said in an interview with Express News channel. Though Pakistan had initially claimed mujahideen were responsible for occupying strategic heights along the Line of Control in early 1999, Musharraf later revealed in his autobiography ‘In The Line Of Fire’ that regular Army troops had participated in the operation. But Musharraf claimed the action in Kargil was a “localised” operation and not a major operation. “Kargil was just one of many sectors under a Major General stationed in Gilgit, (who was) in charge of the area. Exchange of fire was routine there,” he claimed. Musharraf said he would not go so far as to accuse former premier Nawaz Sharif of betrayal but his decision to withdraw from Kargil was a mistake. (Musharraf still showed decency towards,Nawaz Sharif and did not expose the whole story of betrayal by PM)

“Nawaz lost a political front which we had won militarily,” he claimed. The former general, who has been living in self-exile outside Pakistan since 2009, said the “prime consideration” for actions like the Kargil operation is security and secrecy. “So the Army leadership decides who is to be informed and when. As the operation progressed and the proper time arrived, a briefing of the corps commanders was held,” he said. Musharraf said he was “really astonished” that Aziz was writing about the events 10 years later. Blaming the nation at this juncture, as Aziz had done, seems to be “part of a conspiracy”, he claimed. “It was a tactical action that had a strategic importance in which no more than a few hundred persons were involved, but which engaged thousands on the Indian side and was of tremendous importance,” he claimed. Musharraf justified Pakistani casualties in the conflict, claiming the country lost only 270 men against India’s 1,600 soldiers.

Courtesy Press Trust of India

INDIAN VIEWPOINT: NEVER CALL A DEFEAT, A DEFEAT

EYEBALL TO EYEBALL JULY 1999

By Rashed Rahman

India has to mask its initial intelligence failure by regaining the peaks regardless of heavy casualties. Both sides need a face-saving way out. Since early May there has been a see-saw military, political and diplomatic struggle between the two Subcontinental protagonists, Pakistan and India. Islamabad’s position has been that the guerrillas who have captured the heights overlooking the Drass-Kargil-Leh road, are Kashmiri freedom fighters struggling for their long-denied right of self-determination.

India eventually decided, after examining the pros and cons of widening the conflict across the Line of Control (LoC) or even across the international border, on a strategy of containment within the narrower objective of regaining the Kargil heights. This narrower framework meant higher casualties on the Indian side because of the difficulty of traversing slopes against dug-in defenders where the terrain offers no cover. New Delhi calculated that it does have the political will and military morale, despite the heavy casualties, and can sustain the cost in human and material terms. A near-consensus domestically and the willingness of the Indian military command to accept constraints allowed India to continue with an operation in which it suffered disproportionately heavy casualties. With regard to Pakistan, the intriguing question is whether the Kargil heights seizure was part of the normal stepping up of guerrilla activity during summer, or whether it had more ambitious objectives. If it were the former, little can be added, except to mention in passing a failure of Indian intelligence. The guerrillas’ presence was only discovered by accident when two Indian army patrols happened to spot them. The true extent of the guerrilla presence did not sink in until the Indian army had carried out an aerial survey of the area, which revealed that between 400 to 700 guerrillas had seized the heights. This could have put them in a position in any future war to threaten the sole overland logistics link with the Indian forces deployed in Siachen, i.e. the Srinagar-Drass-Kargil-Leh road. But the Kargil seizure could have other strategic objectives with military, political and diplomatic dimensions. Militarily, if the seizure could be maintained for a reasonable period of time and at least until winter sets in, it could open up possibilities of forcing either an Indian withdrawal from Siachen, or a trade-off between the Kargil heights and the Siachen Glacier. Politically, it could reflect the impatience in Islamabad with lack of progress in bilateral discussions on Kashmir under the Lahore Declaration process after the fall of the BJP government in end-April. Despite the fact that Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee of India heads a caretaker government until elections are held in September-October, the hope may have been to force New Delhi back to the negotiating table in a serious mode. Diplomatically, since the bilateral process had not yielded results, an internationalisa-tion of the Kashmir issue may have been sought to bring it back onto the frontburner. If we assume for the sake of argument that all or some of these objectives formed part of the Pakistani thrust into Kargil, or at least were taken on board once things hotted up on the Line of Control, we can examine the results achieved or likely to be achieved in the foreseeable future and then draw up a balance sheet of gains and losses. Missing Kashmir for Kargil Militarily, the inherent difficulty of holding on to the Kargil heights in the face of overwhelming firepower and numbers has become a key question as the battle drags on. India has weighed the costs of heavy casualties against the bigger costs of potentially adverse international intervention if the conflict is widened. It has relied on the political consensus to hold on to Kashmir no matter what the cost, which informs its domestic political spectrum (the weak and scattered chinks of rationality represented by liberal opinion notwithstanding). India’s slow but definite gains against the guerrillas have produced collateral pressures for a withdrawal of the guerrillas from what is turning into a suicidal mission. The political timing of the Kargil seizure, if the idea was indeed to force New Delhi back to serious negotiations, could not have been worse. A caretaker government heading into an election was hardly likely to be in a position to negotiate, let alone offer any flexibility or concession on such a major issue. There has been speculation in the Indian press after the visit to Pakistan by the US emissary General Anthony Zinni regarding proposals purportedly from Islamabad for India to allow safe passage to the guerrillas, quoting the precedent of the Hazrat Bal shrine siege. Whether these reports hold any water or not is not known. However, Western diplomatic pressure on Islamabad is mounting, especially after Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif’s visit to Washington DC and London, and these could take various forms, economic, political, diplomatic. The dependence of the Pakistani economy on the goodwill of the West, and particularly the US, to keep foreign fund flows going makes Pakistan that much more vulnerable to ‘persuasion’. It goes without saying that such ‘persuasion’ seeks to maintain the status quo on Kashmir, while advocating peaceful negotiations. Pakistan’s experience indicates that retaining the status quo has always proved favourable to India. Any disturbance of New Delhi’s hold on Kashmir, even if partial or temporary, serves to refocus the attention of the global community on a long-neglected, festering wound.

admin

Pakistan: the army and the civil administration – a looming crisis? Part 1

by Natalya Zamarayeva

05 May 2014

“The Pakistani Army is defending the integrity of all state institutions, preserving its dignity and institutional honor at a time when the country is facing internal and external challenges,” Chief of Army Staff General Raheel Sharif stated in “response to the military’s concern about the undue criticism of the army in the recent days”.These statements made by the General on April 7, 2014 at the Special Service Group Headquarters in the Ghazi Military Base located in the Tarbela region of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa province have led to mixed reactions within society.

The very fact that the highest military officer addressed a message to the ruling administration is without precedent. Various Pakistani media have openly begun discussing a new crisis in the relationship between the civil administration and the generals; their relationship has already been uneasy in the recent months due to a number of issues. However, the reason for openly warning the federal administration was the decision issued by the Special Court on March 31, 2014 which accused the country’s former president and retired General (former Special Forces) Pervez Musharraf of high treason. This crime carries the death penalty.

The generals intended to demand an explanation. A few days prior to the decision, a meeting was scheduled for April 1, 2014, between the Prime Minister, General Raheel Sharif and the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) Chief Director General Lt. General Zaheer ul-Islam. However, the Prime Minister declined to attend the meeting due to “being extremely busy”. The army was always one of the centers of influence within Pakistan’s political system. As of today, there are three centers of influence: the federal government and the National Assembly (the lower house of parliament), the opposition (the minority in the National Assembly and the majority in the Senate (the upper house of parliament)) and the generals.

The relationship between the generals and the civil administration has always been strained throughout Pakistan’s short history. The military has taken power four times, with the previous coup taking place in 1999. Then Chief of Army Staff General Pervez Musharraf overthrew Nawaz Sharif from his post as Prime Minister (February 1997 to October 1999). The coup was followed by a trial for the former premier, an official sentence of high treason, political exile in 2001 and the return of Nawaz Sharif back to Pakistan only at the end of 2007.

In May of 2013, the Pakistan Muslim League (Nawaz) headed by Nawaz won the parliamentary elections for the third time and Muhammad Nawaz Sharif thus took up the post of Prime Minister. During the formation of the cabinet in May-June 2013, Nawaz filled key positions in the government with members from his own party. The post of defense minister was given to a civilian, which breached military traditions. However, as early as August of 2013, the new Finance Minister Ishaq Dar swiftly reassured the generalship that, despite economic difficulties, “the country’s defense will remain the government’s priority”.

Without forgetting his previous strained relations with the general’s office, Nawaz Sharif was not too quick to appoint a new Chief of Army Staff. He was waiting for November 28, 2013, when General Ashfaq Parvez Kayani would complete his term in office as Chief of Army Staff and on November 29, 2013, Nawaz appointed General Raheel Sharif to the now vacant post. As with Pervez Musharraf’s case in 1998, in 2013, Nawaz Sharif also followed his personal preferences and, as such, violated long-standing military tradition of promoting generals along the career ladder. This led to certain dissatisfaction within the military. However, Nawaz was primarily depending on the general’s support.

The sentence for Pervez Musharraf caused a tidal wave of outrage, which simply gained momentum as time went on. Statements that the court’s decision should be carried out swiftly came from various MPs, members of the Pakistan Muslim League (N), in particular, Defense Minister Khawaja Asif, whose criticism was also further supported by Federal Minister for Railways Khawaja Saad Rafique. The army voiced its support for their former chief. We can only speculate as to the meaning behind the general’s “undue criticism” – has Musharraf’s trial been blatantly politicized, is Musharraf receiving a just trial, and so forth.

There are several overt reasons for the army’s dissatisfaction with the current civil administration (besides the Musharraf case). One of the main reasons is the process of peaceful negotiations between the administration and the prohibited terrorist organization Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan (TTP). In December of 2013 on the first day of negotiations, General Raheel Sharif emphasized the government’s full support and agreed, for a time, to halt military operations against the militants in various regions where Pashtun tribes reside on the Afghanistan border. However, he also noted that he will not tolerate any terrorist attacks and will react to any attacks swiftly and effectively.

Yet in February of 2014, armed clashes with TTP militants in the Mohmand Agency led to the death of 23 federal army officers. The government was quick to accuse the army of being the first to use force during the days of negotiations. The generals then stated their demands – a ceasefire beginning on April 1, 2014 (which has been breached by the militants multiple times). The army’s discontent led to the government’s decision to free 16 arrested TTP militants. Henceforth, all failures during negotiations and any breach of the ceasefire were blamed on the army.

Pakistan: the army and the civil administration – a looming crisis? Part II

The public statement by Chief of Army Staff General Raheel Sharif defending the army’s honor and dignity during a time of internal and external challenges to Pakistan has caused a wave of criticisms by the opposition parties. The Leader of the Opposition in the National Assembly Syed Khursheed Shah has stated that the country cannot afford a dictatorship and a judiciary that “accidentally takes the life of an individual”.

The dissatisfaction exhibited by the Pakistan National Party, one of the main political opponents to the ruling party, is caused by several issues: the premier’s authoritarian methods; ignoring the opinion of the opposition in the National Assembly; the desire to review the 18th Amendment to the Constitution (2010), which grants the provinces significant powers; the politics of Punjab-izing the country (extensive infrastructure investment projects are implemented primarily in the Sharif clan’s home Punjab province) and others.

The Pakistan National Party saw their own pillar of support within the statement made by General Raheel Sharif and, at the same time, a warning to the premier and his entourage. However, they did not openly confront the Pakistan Muslim League (N). In answering the question of whether his party was with the army or with the Pakistan Muslim League (N) party, Leader of the Opposition in the National Assembly Syed Khursheed Shah stated that “his party is with the masses”.

The Pakistan National Party used the strain in the relations between the generals and the ruling administration to their own advantage; for example, within a very short period of time, they were able to push to have joint discussions of the draft Protection of Pakistan Bill in the National Assembly, which is aimed at reassessing provincial rights. It is very rare that Pakistani military make such public statements. On November 5, 2012, then Chief of Army Staff General Ashfaq Parvez Kayani “had warned detractors of military against undermining the institution and behaving as the ‘sole arbiters’ of national interest”.

General Raheel Sharif’s statement also caused a mix of responses within the military. A formula to normalize the relations between the generals and the ruling civil administration was offered by former Army Chief and retired General Mirza Aslam Beg (August 1988 – August 1991),

“1. The criminal trial accusing General Pervez Musharraf of high treason must be stopped and the General needs to be allowed to leave the country.

2. The Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority shall guarantee that no television channel will broadcast any statements that undermine the army’s prestige.

3. Ministers and politicians should be forbidden from publicly criticizing the army and making statements against people who have defended this country with their own life”.

Mirza Beg believes that the “situation will normalize in no time if the government acted in light of his suggestions. Otherwise, the generals will be doing the same thing that was done by General El-Sisi in Egypt.” The former Chief of Army Staff is certain that the country’s constitution “would not be able to block a military intervention if the rulers do not give the army its due respect”. The statement suggesting the censorship of the media with respect to army activities has led to contradicting opinions in society.

The “culprit” behind these tensions was soon found and the conflict was resolved before it could heat up further. The Ministry of Defense sent a written notice to the Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority (PEMRA) administration stating that the Geo News channel has breached PEMRA provisions by broadcasting a report that was offensive to government institutions, bringing bad publicity to the ISI, by which the channel damaged national interests; the administration was urged to shut the channel down and revoke its license. On April 22, 2014, the regulatory authority demanded an answer from the channel before May 6, 2014.

Nawaz Sharif did not externally show any fear after General Raheel Sharif’s statement, however, he was quick to secure support from the opposition and met with his long-time main political opponent Asif Ali Zardari. His clan heads the Pakistan National Party which holds a majority in the upper house of parliament. However, the Pakistan National Party, in trying to avoid any conflicts with the military, was also quick to state that “It should be seen as the democratic forces standing united to strengthen institutions. It should not be taken as against an institution or institutions.”

Many people in Pakistan believe that the crisis in the relations between the generals and the civil administration will not be developing along the route of curtailing democratic gains. Nawaz Sharif’s stance also heavily influences the resolution of this crisis. Will he retire Defense Minister Khawaja Asif and instead hand the post over to the army leadership or will he continue on his present course? Nawaz Sharif is also not very keen on confrontations. At the invitation of the general’s office, the Prime Minister arrived to the PNS Akram military base where he stated that the political and military leaders are working jointly to make Pakistan a developed, safe and peaceful country: “we will work jointly to overcome the challenges being faced by the country”.

It would seem that the civil administration and the generals will, in the future, take steps to avoid confrontation. As of today, the open opposition between the Prime Minister and the Chief of Army Staff has been neutralized. However, the military has issued a warning and the army still retains the means to influence the civil administration.

Natalia Zamarayeva, PhD in History, Senior Research Fellow, Department of Pakistan at the Institute of Oriental Studies in the Russian Academy of Sciences, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.

Reference

admin · Sunday, May 04, 2014

ISLAMABAD, Dec 3: About 1.3 billion people in the world are living without electricity; two-thirds of them being in 10 countries and four of them, including Pakistan, in the Asia Pacific region, says a report of the United Nations. Agriculture Sector

According to the Statistical Yearbook for Asia and the Pacific-2013 released by a UN commission on Tuesday, an estimated 60 per cent of capacity-addition efforts in future will be focused on mini-grids and off-grid connections in which renewable energy sources will play a vital role.

In the generation of electricity from renewable sources, the Asian and Pacific region led the world in 2010. But this amounted to only 15.8 per cent of the region’s total electricity, which is below the world average of 19.4 per cent.

With less than 400 kilowatt-hours per capita, the annual household electricity consumption in the region is the second lowest among the world’s regions, after Africa where it is 200kwh.

About 2.6bn people in the world and 1.8bn in the region use solid fuels for cooking. The WHO estimates that more than 1.45 million people die prematurely each year from indoor air pollution caused by burning solid fuels with insufficient ventilation.

Women’s economic empowerment

The report says that despite its economic growth, the region lags behind in economic empowerment of women. It calls for targeted policy measures to facilitate women’s economic empowerment.

Women still bear the burden of unremunerated productive work, shouldering the major share of household management and care-giving responsibilities.

The report says that in Pakistan women spend 5.5 hours a day on housework and 1.2 hours on childcare whereas men spend 2.5 hours on housework and 0.9 hours on childcare.

It also says that women are overrepresented in sectors and positions that are vulnerable, poorly paid and less secure. For instance, 42 per cent of working women/girls belonged to agriculture sector in 2012 compared with 36.0 per cent of male workers.

Courtesy DAWN

admin

Islamabad diary

Power Drunk Control Freak Nawaz Sharif is a Kughoo.He never learns from his past mistakes and continues to repeat them.He is not too bright in the hard drive in his head. Or he does not know how to use it, because,he lacks critical thinking skills and Emotional Intelligence which goes with it

Nawaz Sharif at loggerheads with the army again, the old pattern of 1999 repeating itself. Cruel destiny…is Pakistan doomed to walk the paths it has trodden before? What is at work here… the army’s overweening ambition or PM Sharif incurable?

Nawaz Sharif’s problem is not the army. His problem is himself, and his inability to be at ease with any but loyal yes-men. More than most mortals he is also given to that oldest of human vices: flattery. Since his rise to political prominence in the 1980s – when Governor Lt Gen Jilani chose him as Punjab finance minister – he has surrounded himself with the trained butler-type of civil servant. As prime minister for the third time this tendency remains unchanged.

The trouble with the army is that no chief, no matter how obliging and self-effacing, can be his master’s voice. He cannot, in open durbar, sing praises of Mian Sahib’s sterling leadership qualities. Politicians are good at this; bureaucrats, especially the breed we see nowadays, are past masters at this game; but it is unreasonable expecting the same from a chief of the army, commanding its divisions and holding the key to the country’s nuclear arsenal.

It’s not that he is a Caesar or someone in that mould. It’s the nature of the position. The present Punjab Inspector General of Police, Khan Baig, can be considered obliging beyond the call of duty. Make him army chief and see the transformation. Even he will start behaving differently…and Mian Sahib will smell a conspiracy.

Army chiefs are no angels. Let us not fall into this trap. There are other things they can do: start unwanted wars and then lose them. An entire army can surrender, as in East Pakistan. Generals can have as keen an eye for wealth and property as any laird of Nawabshah or baron of Raiwind. But bowing and scraping and singing songs of unadulterated flattery army officers usually will not do…unless of course it is a Ziaul Haq performing a role, but then other phantoms will be dancing in his mind.

Mian Sahib has a problem understanding this. Remembering the demons of the past, he thought long and hard about who to appoint army chief and then settled on Gen Raheel Sharif, and everyone said what a brilliant choice, what a thorough gentleman and from what a martial background. And within just a few months Mian Sahib’s telltale smile, which tells all being a bellwether of his feelings, has vanished from his face as he finds himself virtually at war with his own appointee.

No issue of war and peace is involved here, no policy disagreement, just plain human psychology and the inadequacies of a man not comfortable with the mental give-and-take of a genuine discussion.

Forget Gen Raheel Sharif for a moment. Nawaz Sharif has had problems with every army chief he has had to deal with. True, Gen Aslam Beg was flying so high at the time that anyone would have had problems with him. So let’s forget him too. But then Nawaz Sharif couldn’t get along with Gen Asif Nawaz Janjua, nor Gen Kakar, nor – and this beats everything – Gen Karamat. And when Karamat, a civilised man to his fingertips, gave in his papers, no one thrust Gen Musharraf upon Nawaz Sharif. As army chief he chose him himself, and what became of that we know too well.

We may well say Musharraf was an adventurer and a buccaneer and there was bound to be trouble with him. What about Raheel Sharif? Has he too begun looking like a buccaneer, the wolf emerging from the sheepskin?

Army officers generally say nice things about Gen Raheel. But he could have been a saint, a warrior of the steppes, conqueror of Samarkand and Bokhara, and Nawaz Sharif still would have run into problems with him…simply because Gen Raheel would not have clicked his heels enough nor dipped his tongue into jam and sugar when speaking to the prime minister. Nothing more complicated than this.

With a chief who is your appointee and who by all accounts is a reasonable man, what was there that could not be discussed…India, the Taliban, the Musharraf trial? But this would have required some mental interaction, some intellectual engagement with the military brass. Trouble is that even to hint at such an exercise in relation to the lords of the present dispensation may be to ask for too much.

Persons close to Nawaz Sharif, with his interests at heart, told him not to get embroiled in the Musharraf trial. I have it from well-placed sources that the PM would listen but say nothing. The urge to settle scores with his old nemesis was simply too compelling to resist. Even when a way out of the imbroglio had been found – by allowing Musharraf to go abroad – the revenge urge proved more powerful than any words of wisdom and the PM, according to more than one account, went back on his word. And the army saw red and postures stiffened.

Wiser counsels seemed to prevail once more when the PM went to the passing out parade at PMA Kakul and, in what must have been a first in the history of the Academy, went out of his way to hold up the virtues of the army chief for young army officers to emulate.

When all this bonhomie was on display in Kakul, the same evening the attack on Hamid Mir took place. This was a golden opportunity to further mend matters between the government and GHQ. When the ISI was accused of being behind this attack and a media civil war was flaring up over this allegation, all that was required was a four-five line statement saying that the issue should not be pre-judged and no institution should be attacked without the burden of proof.

But the government just could not bring itself to say this, feeding the perception that it was taking sides not only in the media civil war but standing against the army and ISI. The PM visited Hamid Mir in Karachi but said not a word about the accusations against the ISI. The army’s riposte came in the form of the army chief’s visit to ISI HQs in Islamabad a day later, confirming, if any confirmation was needed, that the breach between the two sides was now wide open.

In 1999 it took the Kargil conflict and much more to push Pakistan to the brink of the October coup. This time round, even before Nawaz Sharif has completed his first year in office, it has taken much less to bring the country to a similar pass. Musharraf, down and out, forlorn and lost, can be forgiven for chuckling to himself.

Some consequences we can already note: (1) without the army’s backing the Taliban talks are as good as dead; (2) India must be looking very carefully at the prospects of doing business with a beleaguered government; and (3) channels of communication between the civil and military spheres have gone dead. Call this the brilliance of Pakistani statesmanship.

And the outlines of a new line-up are visible on the national horizon. When in times past the army stood against democracy, rightwing forces and Islamist parties stood with the army. When the army is supportive of democracy and searching for a national consensus against the threat from the Taliban, all its erstwhile allies have deserted it, to join forces with the new rightwing, and pro-Taliban coalition, on the other side.

The old ideological alignments have thus been made to stand on their head. Call this the new paradigm, a first for Pakistan and something entirely new for the army.

Email: [email protected]

Not Found

Archive for category Nawaz Sharif & Kashmiri Biradari

A fractured central bank by Dr.Muhammad Yaqub, Fmr.Governor Pakistan State Bank

A fractured central bank

Dr Muhammad Yaqub, former Governor of the State Bank of Pakistan.:

WHY IS NAWAZ SHARIF CALLED THE COWARD OF KARGIL?PMLN LIES ABOUT KARGIL WAR.EVEN INDIANS CALLED IT DEFEAT

WHY IS NAWAZ SHARIF CALLED THE COWARD OF KARGIL ?

KARGIL WAR WAS A VICTORY FOR

PAKISTAN ARMY,EVEN FROM INDIAN ARMY’S INQUIRY

QUOTE FROM INDIAN ARMY INQUIRY ON KARGIL LOSSES IN RESPECTED

INDIAN MAGAZINE OUTLOOK

That some 30 court martial proceedings are pending against officers of the rank of Major and below illustrates just who the Indian army establishment has chosen to make scapegoats of. Documents to which Frontline has access make clear that responsibility for events lies higher.[Frontline]

KARGIL WAS A BIG SUCCESS FOR PAKISTAN: MUSHARRAF

Islamabad: Claiming that his 1999 Kargil operation was a “big success militarily”, former Pakistani president Pervez Musharraf has said that if the then prime minister Nawaz Sharif had not visited the US, the Pakistani Army would have “conquered” 300 square miles of India.

INDIAN VIEWPOINT: NEVER CALL A DEFEAT, A DEFEAT

EYEBALL TO EYEBALL JULY 1999

By Rashed Rahman

Pakistan: the army and the civil administration – a looming crisis? Part 1

by Natalya Zamarayeva

05 May 2014

Pakistan: the army and the civil administration – a looming crisis? Part II

General Raheel Sharif’s statement also caused a mix of responses within the military. A formula to normalize the relations between the generals and the ruling civil administration was offered by former Army Chief and retired General Mirza Aslam Beg (August 1988 – August 1991),

Natalia Zamarayeva, PhD in History, Senior Research Fellow, Department of Pakistan at the Institute of Oriental Studies in the Russian Academy of Sciences, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.

IPPs : The Stealth Economic Hit Men Sent to Destroy Pakistan Economy Under Incompetent Nawaz Sharif

Debt of Rs1 billion per day or Rs 41 million per hour

Sunday, May 04, 2014

Dr Farrukh Saleem

Fact 1: On June 5, Mian Muhammad Nawaz Sharif took the oath of the prime ministerial office.

Fact 2: Soon after coming to power, the PML-N government paid off Rs480 billion worth of accumulated circular debt.

Fact 3: Over the past 330 days, the government has accumulated Rs330 billion worth of brand new circular debt – Rs1 billion per day, every day of the past 11 months.

Argument 1: The government argues that the cost of production of electricity is higher than the sale price – and thus the government ends up accumulating multi billion-rupee circular debt. Why is the government then not doing anything about the cost of production of electricity?

Just consider this: Pakistani Independent Power Producers (IPPs) are consuming up to 24 kg of oil to produce 100 kWh. Internationally, power plants take in 14 kg of oil to produce 100 kWh. Why isn’t the government after the IPPs?

Now consider this: Pakistani IPPs are consuming up to 12,000 BTUs of gas to produce a unit of electricity. In India, they are producing the same unit of electricity by taking in a mere 5,000 BTUs. Why isn’t the government questioning the IPPs?

Conclusion: The government, by design or by default, is focusing on all the wrong places. The government, by design or by default, is missing the elephants in the room. The elephants in the room are the IPPs. The IPPs are gulping down way too much oil. And the IPPs are taking in way too much gas.

Pakistan among 10 countries facing severe energy crisis: Agriculture Sector