What is to be done? (Jan 15, 2010)

What is to be done? This question has been posed in a Leninist tradition by Dr. Jaffar Ahmed from the platform of Irtiqa, which is a think-tank mainly focused on literature. By posing this question to a group of progressive intellectuals and activist, my presumption is that Irtiqa has raised this issue to develop a political, social and economic ‘manifesto’ for the progressive forces or at least a guiding document.

There are a number of small left-wing parties and organisations that are struggling to make their mark, but without much success. The left has not been able to revive from the shock of the fall of the communist government in Soviet Union and many other East European states. One young participant of the Irtiqa discussion group pointed out that left in Pakistan has till not come out from the cold war mind set. Even the terminology used by them is outdated. Frivolous leadership and polemics differences have led to unending fragmentation of the left, while the overall situation of the country is deteriorating by days if not hours. A major reason for the success of religious extremists is by default of the left in the last three decades.

Left-wing leading intellectual was right that perhaps it is high time in the noon that the left should rethink its past and develop a new thesis that is relevant to meet the challenges of the changed world.

My contention is that it is not the matter of left and right at this juncture of history. It is a matter of attending the most immediate issues first that affect the lives of a vast majority of the people of Pakistan irrespective of their class. The oft repeated mistake of working for a distant revolution and ignoring the most urgent issues of the people should not be made once again.

So let’s attempt to address the most urgent issues faced by the country without going into the usual polemics and history of the country that we all know well. The issues are first listed priority-wise, and then each one of them is explained briefly. Followed by the answer to the question “What is to be done?” The most urgent issues are:

1. Create awareness against the threat to people of Pakistan from the  existing National Security Policy that is based on covert support to Afghan Taliban & India specific Jihadi organizations.
2. Create awareness that the democratic institutions have to be strengthened and the security apparatus of the state should follow the policies of the elected leadership.
3. Support all moves to surrender maximum provincial autonomy to the provinces.
4. Work towards alleviating poverty by pushing the government to make such economic policies that brings equitable economic progress.

At present most of the political and economic problems have a direct link with the ever-growing terrorism in the country. This is linked with the National Security Policy followed by our military establishment in the last 6 decades. Right from the time when Pakistan relied on Afghan Lashkar to liberate Kashmir, to encourage Mujahedin to cross LoC in 1965, to plan a so-called Mujahedin’ operation in Kargil in 1999 and till today that our establishment backs and has been nurturing a number of non-state militant actors. To recruit and keep the young militants blood warm systematically Jihadi ideology has been promoted in this country, without realising that we would be engulfed by the same fire that was sparked for Afghanistan and India.

Today Pakistan is reluctant to withdraw its support to Afghan Taliban and India specific Jihadi organizations. They are operating freely and have given birth to a number of militant outfits which have a local agenda of establishing the Islamic Emirate of Pakistan. This is where it has come in conflict with the army which does not want Jihad in the country as it is a question of the writ of the establishment. At the same time any move to suspend Jihad in India and Afghanistan is seen by these Jihadi organizations as capitulation of our government. Inspired by the Al Qaeda global ideology these organizations are now cooperating with each other and creating havoc in the country. The bad news is that as the American and Indian pressure is increasing on Pakistan we will rein-in the Jihadists, which means retaliation from them and more dirty violence and bloodshed. And the worst news is that in spite of this situation our establishment still thinks that Afghan Taliban and Jihadi organizations are our assets though they are the liabilities.

So what is to be done by the progressive groups?

First, they should be clear that Afghan Taliban’s are not fighting a National Liberation war. Second, launch a peace movement insisting that Pakistan should not support any militant organization that is involved in cross-border interference. If we will try to evade this issue and try to justify this as being done by some right and left wing mullahs – we will fail the people of Pakistan. Three, we should not leave the media open for such fundamentalists. They have an edge in propaganda war, all progressive democratic forces should pro-actively counter this and prepare a strategy to claim its rightful space in the media.

I have dealt with the National Security Policy issue in detail because the second issue of strengthening the democratic structure is directly linked to the first issue. Till a few days back the political government had openly talked about changing the dangerous National Security Policy. But lately it seems the beleaguered President has stepped back on this important issue to save himself from the wrath of the establishment. Perhaps he is beginning to realise that Rawalpindi is nearer than Washington.

What is to be done?

We should support democratic dispensation. There is corruption in the country which should be exposed but that should not be used to bring the government down before its tenure is completed.

Another pending issue of Pakistan is giving greater provincial autonomy to the provinces. It is an urgent issue because already the patience of the people of Balochistan has exhausted from the injustices of the last six decades. They are now demanding independence. At present it looks like a demand of a few hot heads, but a closer study shows that the Baloch would not hesitate to break away if at any stage the United States and Indian governments would lend support. This eventuality cannot be ruled out if we would not desist from our policy of support to the Afghan Taliban thinking that they are useful assets against India in Afghanistan. The provincial autonomy issue is also important for Sindh and Pukhtunkhawa. Federation of Pakistan which is standing upside down on its head and has to be turned over to stand on its feet. The democratic forces should support devolution of power not only to the provinces but to the local governments also.  We should be however clear that giving more power to people in  democracy is through an evolutionary process.

Now we come to the main question: What is to be done to reduce poverty? In the first place all what I have talked about above is with a clear understanding that a peaceful environment in the country and around it and a stable government is the pre-requisite for economic progress. If there is no economic development there would be no poverty alleviation rather poverty will increase.

However, in the first phase we should strive for more equitable distribution of wealth and push the government to increase budgets for the social sector. This investment in social sector is directly related to improving the dismal human development index of the country. Revolution is not in sight,  incremental gains for the people are urgently needed. Struggle for these urgent issues is what touches people’s imagination, not a promise of distant socialist revolution. Dogmatic application of left ideology has made the left irrelevant. New paths of development would have to be carved keeping in view the basic reality that means of production and relations of production have changed beyond the old points of reference.  We are in the globalised knowledge age, whether we like it or not. Sticking to old interpretations would be left-wing fundamentalism. (ayazbabar@gmail.com)

Lessons to be learnt from the Ashura carnage (09 Jan, 2010)

Last year ended on a tragic high note. Over 40 persons were killed in the Ashura procession’s blast; thousands of shops were burnt in the arson and followed by looting. The response of the government and political parties that followed this black 28/12 is also pathetic. Instead of searching for truth and learning lessons from this gruesome episode, unfortunately a game of political point scoring and finding a scape goat has started.

While preliminary report of the government says that the bomb was planted on the route of the procession in a box for collecting papers that have holy inscriptions which was affixed to a pole, some eye witnesses who lost their family members are not convinced with this finding. They feel that the suicide bombing cannot be ruled out. Initially the government also released the picture of the severed head of a young man and claimed it was that of the suicide bomber. And the rangers were not far behind in giving a medal to the two Jawans who died in the blast for courageously trying to stop the bomber. But then it was found out it was the head of a young volunteer. What happened to the Rangers’ story there was no follow up or should I say it was covered up.

In both the cases whether it was suicide bombing by some sectarian organisation or the bomb was planted, the security lapse charge cannot be washed away. In the suicide case people may have lenient view of the security agencies because there is a perception that such attacks cannot be stopped. So the Rangers and the volunteer who lost their lives get the credit to limit the damage. But if it was a planted bomb then the responsibility falls on the people who supposedly checked and cleared the route. In both cases the lesson of this tragedy is that police and rangers do not have the capacity to secure such a long route in terms of equipment, training and numbers. One retired IG said that the police is too thinly spread and badly equipped. “No Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) for managing such difficult security situation and counter the rioting were followed,” he added.

Lesson two of this episode is that the government agencies should not jump to conclusions about the cause of such incidents before they get at least preliminary investigation report. And only one person should be authorized to speak on behalf of each institution otherwise conflicting views given by the government agencies cause confusion and breed misunderstanding.

Lesson three is that all sizeable organisations, whether they are in the private or public sector, should work out on possible crisis scenarios and prepare themselves for all eventualities by conducting regular drills. The handling of a handful of arsonists after the blast and massive damage caused by them shows that the government was not prepared. One affected person said that when asked why they were not taking any action, the Rangers standing close to the market where arsonists were breaking in, said ‘we don’t have such orders.’ The Rangers were right because legally only authorized persons can order to shoot. First lesson is that usually our police and rangers jawans are not provided radios on which they can take orders from their superiors. Second, the so-called command and control center has neither any official who can issue commands nor has the ability to control anything. At best it is a good record keeping center which can provide recordings for investigation purposes.

Now let’s talk about the massive damage caused to the shops, warehouses and offices in this incident. First lesson here is that the government should make it mandatory of these businessmen to get their stocks and properties insured so that in case of any damage the burden does not fall on the tax payers. The insurance companies should also come forward with packages which are affordable for such businesses. Second, the compensation to the affected people should be in proportion to the average of taxes paid by these businesses in the last three years. We all know that most of the shops and warehouses there were that of wholesale dealers, who usually have a large turnover and little tax contribution to the exchequer. Most the business is undocumented and is done in cash. Third, while such business should have some fire fighting equipment of their own as required under law particularly for warehouses, there should be adequate local government facilities in each locality so that it can be mobilized quickly.

In each city the government should also have a crisis management team, which undertakes a drill every six months on probable scenarios. This team should have a crisis control center with all the necessary communication equipment. The team should be able to get to the crisis control center quickly and then take a coordinated approach. The command & control center established by the city government in Karachi can then be effectively utilised by this high-level team which is authorized to take control and issue command.

All this would be only possible if all the stakeholders of the city sit together and discuss the future crisis management strategy, evolve the future implementation plan and roll-on to the future. The way things are in Pakistan 28/12 Black Monday is unfortunately not the last attack by the barbarians at our door, there are many more to come across the country. For heavens sake get prepared on scientific lines and stop scoring points on each other and shifting blame while sitting over hundreds of dead bodies littered in the killing fields of Pakistan. (ayazbabar@gmail.com)

Will 2010 be worse then 2009? (Dec 29, 2009)

Sadly the political forecast for 2010 doesn’t look any better than the bloody 2009. On the contrary 2010 has all the indications of being worse. Why? Let’s take my last year 2009’s forecast published by Business Recorder in this space and examine objectively why there is hardly a reason to celebrate the dawn of 2010.

Last January I wrote: “So far the democratic system has faired well by developing consensus on the national security issues. It is for the first time all the parties discussed the national security issues in the parliament, they were briefed by the armed forces on the challenges and they decided to give a clear message to the militants that Pakistan’s territory cannot be used for interference in other countries.”

We all know that this year this consensus is no more. The coming weeks are going to see a direct conflict between the President House and other more powerful institutions of the establishment. Political Pundits are predicting that in a few weeks the President would be declared ineligible to hold this position by his neighbours next door and then he will have to step down to face the corruption charges. Those who are more charitable believe that he may get away by giving all the powers he has at present in a trade off for immunity. But this latter view also means that the PPP-led alliance will have to accept the perilous National Security Policy of the establishment which has brought the country to the brink of disaster. So may God save the people of Pakistan!

Last January I also said that “there are doubts that the establishment and the civilian government fully agree on National Security issues. This would mean we will keep beating around the bush, and militants would continue to operate with impunity. As a consequence we would land ourselves in an international nutcracker. Though the belligerent Bush government would give way to the change-oriented Obama government, there would be pressure on Pakistan to deliver Afghan Taliban either at the negotiating table or back the surge against them in 2009. Remember Obama has declared that the Afghan war is just, while Iraq was the wrong war.”

Obama has already announced his policy putting the burden of success on Pakistan’s support. Thus the situation is much more serious as the international pressure is going to be stifling this year and the establishment’s clever tricks would not work. It is true that the US-led alliance needs Pakistan to be successful in Afghanistan. But we should realise that this demand can only be met by taking on or atleast withdrawing shelter to the Afghan Taliban and by winding up the India specific Jihadi organisations. The political government wants to deliver this but the establishment does not. The present political conflict is the consequence of this conflict on national security policy, resurrection of President’s corruption cases is only the wrapping.

In this backdrop the probable scenario for 2010 is that the country would not only see more terrorist onslaughts but political instability as well. If the President is forced to step down by the over-zealous men in black coats and gowns, the Khaki co-evolutionists believe the democratic system would not be damaged and a new angel politician can be elected. They may be right but what they do not comprehend, consciously or unconsciously, is that the more crucial and urgent issue is the paradigm shift in the country’s national security policy and not finding some Mister Clean as the president. Please try to see through the thinly veiled tricks of the establishment. They have always used the corruption stunt to bring down political governments, as if the military rule was kosher.

Ramifications of this political conflict would be that the short-sighted establishment of Pakistan would be forced to fight the terrorists at the one hand. On the other they are going to loose the support of the largest political party which had the courage to come out openly in support of the military operation against the Jihadi terrorists. Benazir Bhutto was the only national leader, not discounting some of the regional leaders, who had the courage to take on the Jihadi terrorists. Even in her last speech before she was assassinated she thundered against the Swat Taliban. Her party has followed this policy and provided support to the army in its operations in Malakand and South Wazirstan. They are the one who are clear about changing the threat perception of Pakistan, which is in conflict with the faulty establishment theory. Policy of non-interference in the affairs of Afghanistan and India is wise; establishment’s outdated strategy to support the non-state actors against these neighbours is indeed otherwise.

Alternate scenario could be that President Zardari moves quickly with the constitutional amendments. It is not just some of the controversial clauses of the 17^th Amendment that need to be chucked out of the constitution, as PML (N) and some political analysts like us to believe, the provincial autonomy related amendments are also equally important if not more. This might get President Zardari the support of Nawaz Sharif and the leaders of smaller provinces making it difficult for the establishment to force him out of office. The court can then grant him immunity in the same spirit in which it had not touched the swearing in of the President by Justice Dogar.

Perhaps the only silver-lining for 2010 is that the government has been able to stave off the economic fall and the economy is expected to grow by 3%. But the political instability and further deterioration of the internal security threatens any revved up growth and may cast dark clouds to hide this silver-lining too.

For the last two years I have been writing political and economic forecasts at the beginning of the year. Some of my readers complained that these columns were depressing. I am also not happy that much of what I wrote sadly came true. The problem is political forecasting has to be on the basis of objective analysis of available facts and trends and not on a subjective wish list. We all wish every night that tomorrow may bring peace and progress to our country. I have done it for many years every day. And if this wish would come true, I would ride a horse. My apologies my friends – the agony of knowing is tormenting for me too! (ayazbabar@gmail.com Blog: babarayaz.wordpress.com)

NRO Judgment (19-12-2009)

Pakistani political soap opera continues and so far no surprises for the audience. In the latest episode the Supreme Court declared that the National Reconciliation Ordinance was “ultra vires and violative of various constitutional provisions.” Much before the court took up the matter on 7^th

December this decision was expected as nobody was willing to defend a bad law. Even the government and its allies first backed out from getting this bad law passed from the parliament, and then made it clear in the Supreme Court that its not going to defend this law.

The Acting Attorney General Shah Khawar stated clearly that the NRO “was promulgated by the previous regime and I am under instruction not to defend it.” Then entered my friend Barrister Kamal Azfar representing the Federation, but  perhaps his role was only to highlight the political side of the case. Having made a politically charged allegation that the political system is threatened by the GHQ and CIA, he clarified on the next day that it was his personal view and not that of his client (Federation). He pleaded “as such I withdraw the same” allegation. Interesting isn’t it. President Zardari, who was the whipping boy during the proceedings of this case, also rushed to say that Azfar’s remarks about GHQ and CIA were uncalled for. What is intriguing is how come Barrister Azfar clubbed GHQ and CIA as a threat to the system, when the Americans have tied their aid to Pakistan with the civilian government’s control over the army? I wonder is it a political miscalculation or he knows through his clients more than we all do.

Those who have been consistently struggling against the military interference in politics since the time of Ayub Khan feel that Kamal Azfar should have put on record how democratic dispensations have been sabotaged in this country.  This could have provided the right political prospective to the case which would have long-term implications for the politics of Pakistan.

Of the thousands of NRO beneficiaries which included those who have been indicted for murder and rape, the Supreme Court particularly mentioned the money laundering case in which President Zardari is an accused. While striking down a disgusting law, perhaps the SCP also wanted to show that justice should be started from the top.

But now the unexpected twist in the story. The Swiss Law Ministry spokesman has said that first the Pakistani Courts would have to re-open the case and convict the accused and then come to them. The logic is that the charge of ill-gotten wealth, which it was, has to be proved where the crime was committed. The money laundering has to then follow. This was not expected by many people who thought that by going to Swiss courts directly the hot issue of President’s immunity would be tackled well. The ball is back in Pakistan’s court.

Now coming up in the next episode of this never ending political soap would be the petition challenging the immunity of the President. The media would once again have a good topic for the talk shows and to keep up the ratings. And the Kharadar speculators in Karachi would have another issue for taking bets. This time the decision is not predictable. Political Pundits in Islamabad are of the view that if President Zardari would hasten to take the role of titular head of state as envisaged in the original 1973 constitution, his immunity would not be touched.

The moralists demand is that he should resign with all those who have pending cases against them. This is a just demand. Look what has happened in the case of Defence Minister Chaudhry Mukhtar who was not allowed to travel on an official visit to China. While it is a good example that for once nobody is above the law in the country, it is also disgraceful for the nation. What are we telling the world that we have entrusted the defense of the country in the hands of a minister who cannot be trusted to return home after the meeting. (This is aside from the fact that Ch. Mukhtar claims that inclusion of his name in the NRO list was a mistake and he has challenged it in court). The Prime Minister has taken action against the officials who were responsible for putting Defence Minister on ECL. I hope the court would let the executive do its job and give them their due constitutional space. At present there is a growing feeling that courts are being carried away with the hype built by the media.

It is because of such legal complications that usually civilised politicians resign when they are indicted in a case. But of course this happens in the countries that have democratic traditions and a neat balance among the three pillars of democracy. Alas! Pakistan does not fall in this category. The Interior Ministry which is supposed to put people on exit control list had barred its own minister from travelling abroad. If the Interior Minister has any grain of self-respect he should resign and face the trial. The defense taken by the ministers that they are only accused and not convicted is technically correct, but the practical issue is that by remaining in a position of power they can influence the case and would not be able to discharge their duties effectively.

People like us who supported the restoration of judges were hopeful that the higher judiciary will concentrate on tackling the corruption in the lower courts, but so far no visible change is seen. Don’t they say that charity begins at home? The common man suffers in the lower courts and seldom has the money to reach the superior judiciary.

Finally, having won all the laurels for giving the decision that hurts many in the sitting civilian government, the Supreme Court’s popularity graph is high. The Chief Justice and some of his colleagues have also the distinction of standing up to a military ruler. After the NRO the people would now be right to look up to the Supreme Court to take up Asghar Khan’s petition, in his life time, in which he had accused a number of politicians of taking slush money from ISI to form an alliance and defeat PPP in the elections. The then ISI Chief had also admitted that he had given this money and divulged the politicians names and amounts doled out to them. This case is much older than the NRO petition which stands disposed. A courageous decision would snub those who talk of selective justice in this country. It would also set an example for invisible soldiers to stay away from meddling in the country’s politics. It is their interference in politics to protect their dangerous national security policies that has damaged the country more than anything else. Clipping the President’s wings is not enough, whittling khaki angles’ power is important to bring this country out of the self-destruction mode. (ayazbabar@gmail.com)

Obama Afghan Policy 05/12/2009

Much-awaited President Obama’s policy statement on Afghanistan and Pakistan was not a surprise. So the criticism that the US did not take Pakistan into confidence before announcing this policy is ridiculous. What he said about Pakistan is the elaboration of his statements made during his election campaign speeches. And what has been said in the Kerry-Lugar bill. The difference was that the policy speech shows that Obama has now a better understanding about Pakistan’s concerns. And his tone is more responsible. I think the Americans were particularly cautious with the tone and tenor about Pakistan after the bitter experience from the reaction on the Kerry-Lugar bill’s language.

At the very outset of the speech, unlike Bush, he tried to appease the Muslims. While talking about terrorists, he says “these men belong to Al Qaeda – a group of extremists who have distorted and defiled Islam one of the world’s great religions, to justify the slaughter of innocents.” So he is not out on a crusade like Bush, who foolishly gave it a religious colour by using a wrong term at wrong place.

By giving the withdrawal date he has also tried to reach out to the people who believe that US has come to Afghanistan to stay for some strategic reasons. But many in Pakistan, and his critics at home, are rightly skeptic that whether the job which could not be accomplished in the last eight years, can be quickly wrapped up in 18 months. Even Pakistan’s Foreign Minister feels that US should stay for another five years if they want to stabilise Afghanistan. And he is right. Obama has explained that by giving the deadline he wants to express “urgency” and to impress upon the Afghan people that they should prepare themselves to take the responsibility of their country as early as possible.

Another objective of giving this timeframe could be to use it as a negotiating point with the Taliban and show them that Americans don’t want to stay forever.  The Taliban leadership has been saying that they are fighting to get the foreign forces out of the country, so here is their carrot, if they are wise enough to bite it.

If they do then they have to enter through the backdoor of the Saudi palace diplomacy and accept that the way forward is to join the democratic process. Karzai’s sham democracy is rightly looked down upon by many Taliban supporters. But they have to also recognise that this imperfect democracy can only be evolved and no magic wand can turn into a developed democratic set up in a couple of years particularly when the country is facing an insurgency. At the same time the Taliban have to realise that the days when they could establish a fascist Islamic government are history. They have to soften up.

And who could influence them to climb down to reality? Of course this is where the role of Pakistan comes in. President Obama and many other world leaders have expressed time and again that the road to peace in Afghanistan goes through Pakistan. That’s why Obama said: “We will act with the full recognition that our success in Afghanistan is inextricably linked to our partnership with Pakistan.” To rest the fears of overzealous Pakistani patriot’s mind he has admitted: “In the past, we too often defined our relationship narrowly. Those days are over. Moving forward we are committed to a partnership with Pakistan that is built on a foundation of mutual interests, mutual respect and mutual trust. We will strengthen Pakistan’s capacity to target those groups that threaten our countries, and have made it clear that we cannot tolerate a safe-haven for terrorists whose location is known and whose intentions are clear…..going forward, the Pakistani people must know that America will remain a strong supporter of Pakistan’s security and prosperity long after the guns have fallen silent, so that the great potential of its people can be unleashed.” (An attempt to solace those Manicheans who want US out of Afghanistan and Pakistan and in the same breath blame them for leaving the region after the withdrawal of the Soviet forces).

This assurance is meaningful particularly when General McChrystal has mentioned in his policy advisory that Pakistan is concerned about the growing Indian influence in Afghanistan. Pakistani establishment feels that Afghan Taliban are playing perhaps their last card in that country. The present government of this war-ravaged country is distinctly pro-India because of years of investment by Delhi in the anti-Taliban forces. One major problem of Afghanistan is that both India and Pakistan are trying to use Afghanistan against each other instead of helping it. Pakistani establishment feels that as it has a common border with Afghanistan it should be its client state. Any increase in Indian influence in Afghanistan is seen by Islamabad establishment as an attempt to encircle it.

Through out the Pak-Afghan relations 60 years history, Pakistan has desired to have a protégé government in Kabul. It is this death-wish that has brought Pakistan to the present juncture. It is this attitude that has kept all Afghan governments unhappy with Pakistan, except for the brief period of primitive Pusthon-led Taliban government. Even Mullah Omar’s government did not decide the pending Durand line issue and when it came to choose between Pakistan its benefactor and Osama the liability, he elected for the latter.

Talk to any educated Afghan refugee anywhere in the world they are all praise for the people of Pakistan, but bitterly against our government for interfering in their internal affairs. General Ziaul Haq and General Akhtar, who started this game in Pakistan, died in the air leaving behind a highly weaponised Pakistan and their last remnant – General Hamid Gul. The country is still paying the price of their unpardonable follies. The trouble is that some in our Khaki establishment have still not moved away from this dream. It should be Afghan government’s prerogative to decide who they want to be close to, not ours. If we want to win them over it should be by helping them in getting the Taliban on the negotiations table and not by backing Mullah Omar – that is what the Americans are also looking for from us.

Perhaps Pakistan can deliver this because without its help Taliban cannot succeed in Afghanistan and they should know it. But in return Islamabad wants that the US should pressurise the reluctant Indians to work out a solution of the Kashmir issue with Pakistan. Pakistan has already moved away from its historic stance on Kashmir and is now willing to accept a solution that is acceptable to the Kashmiri people and that ensures smooth flow of water from the rivers assigned to it in the Indus Water Treaty. This is where we would like to invoke Obama’s assurance: “America will remain a strong supporter of Pakistan’s security and prosperity.”

The chances are that the Jihadi organisations and some hawks in the establishment would like to continue with the old policy of nurturing militant organisations to keep the pressure on India and US. They are capable of pulling another Mumbai on us. So far we have lived dangerously. We nurtured the Afghan Taliban to extend our so-called strategic depth in Afghanistan. And now we want to bargain with the American on this chip. With India our establishment thinks it has the Lashkar-e-Taiba and Jaish Mohammed’s trump card. Notwithstanding the fact that the other side has a much stronger game in their hand and we are many tricks down. It’s high time that the Pakistani establishment stops this bloody brinkmanship. Haven’t we bled enough to know that our policies are our follies? (ayazbabar@gmail.com)

Corruption (20-11-2009)

Moral pressure on the government to curb rampant corruption and improve the governance is rising every day. While the army and other law enforcing agencies are doing their duty to combat terrorism in the country, the media and civil society is raising the heat on corruption issues.

First they forced the government to pull back the NRO from the parliament, and then came the German-based NGO Transparency International report. And come November 28 the Pandora box of all corruption cases would be opened. The courts will start tightening the rope around the corrupt. Those who claim that they were politically victimised, which is true to some extent, will have to prove it to the courts that the cases were cooked up.

Beleaguered government was quick to respond after the TI report said that the level of corruption is rising in the country. The Prime Minister quickly appointed a committee under the Finance Minister. I wonder how Shaukat Tarin, who is extremely busy in managing the dwindling economy, is going to take out time to come up with something substantial to curb corruption in the country. The technocrat finance minister would also be stone-walled by the politicians and civil-military bureaucracy who have more clout than him. In most developing countries level of corruption has a co-relation with the stage of economic, political and sociological development. Institutional development and evolution of democratic structure has inherent capability to check the growth of corruption.

TI is not the only one which has rated Pakistan as the 42^nd most corrupt country in the world. According to a World Bank survey which covers 100,000 companies from 179 countries: 27% respondents from Pakistan say that they expect to pay informal payment to public officials to get things done; 13% say that they give gifts to get an operating license; 59% pay bribes to tax officials; 30% pay illegal gratifications for getting a contract; and 59% said that corruption is the major constraint in doing business. Freedom House publishes a corruption index too.

First let’s briefly define ‘Corruption’ as it is perceived today by the economists and political analysts. According to the Oxford Dictionary of Politics: “Corruption obtains when an official transfers a benefit to an individual who may or may not be entitled to the benefit, in exchange for an illegal payment (the bribe). By taking the bribe, the official breaks a legal binding promise he gave to his ‘principal …” It further says “ A positive relation appears to exist between the extent of bribery and the ‘level of red tape….”

Two social scientists Donatella Della Porta and Yves Meny in their excellent book ‘Democracy and Corruption in Europe’ have said: “Corruption can be initially defined as clandestine exchange between two markets; the political and/or administrative ‘market’ and the economic and social market.”

Corruption perhaps has been the oldest evil that has existed in the human society. The issue has come under the spotlight after the end of the cold war. Before that the capitalist democracies were only critical of corruption in the socialist countries and would cover up their own follies. But once the fear that people might get attracted to an alternate socialist politico-economic system fell with the Berlin war that the western democracies became introspective about the ills within.

Corruption in developing and developed countries is not only an exclusive domain of the politicians and the government officials. Multi-billion corruption scandals in the West have brought on the worst recession. In Pakistan the media industry is also well aware of the corrupt practices of their owners, advertising agencies and even multinational brand managers. The irony is that the same people sermon ad-nauseam about politicians’ and government officials’ corruption. Forgetting, that only the pious who have not sinned can cast the first stone.

Public interest in the developing countries like Pakistan has surged as the democratic institutions started functioning and the economic structure is being deregulated giving more space to the private sector. This transition has led to the collision between the market players and a new social class of politicians who are seen by the people acquiring wealth rapidly. The arrogance of this new class of politicians is irritating to the middle class of the country. When the government officials and corrupt politicians react to the voices raised against corruption they miss the point. They fail to recognise that with the democratic evolution ‘new social forces’ have “risen which previously lacked social muscle to stand up.” These emerging social forces are led by the middle class journalists and backed by the rejuvenated judiciary. What is happening in Pakistan on this issue is not that far behind than when the media and judiciary started going after corruption issues in the developed countries like Italy, Spain, UK and France in the late eighties and this struggle continues even today.

We should analyse who are the major actors in this ‘corruption drama’ at the national level and what gives them chance to gather this rent from the society. What is the level of the financial loss to the country because of corruption is difficult to say. The figures floating in the media at present are not backed by any in-depth economic study. I think a bigger loss to the economy is committed by the delayed decisions on important development and commercial issues. Bitter sugar fiasco is one such example.

Leaving aside the corruption at the lower level for the time being let’s discuss where each deal runs into million and billions. The major actors in Pakistan are the same culprits who scream from the pulpit that corruption is rampant – politicians, civil & military bureaucracy and the business tycoons. The latter is the biggest beneficiary of this system. As one businessman confessed the other day after giving me a lecture on rising corruption that if a business house pays Rs10 million in bribes, the gain acquired is at least ten times of this amount.

Much of the corruption that irritates the common man is when they have to pay bribe to get the legal work done at the lower level. This American functionalist say is for ‘lubricating the machinery that was jammed’ in the developing countries. They also appropriately named it as ‘wheels’ as opposed to ‘bribe’ because the person who lubricates these ‘wheels’ is just getting the file moved cutting the bureaucratic red tape. The problem is that little has been done to cut the discretionary powers of the officials, which are flagrantly exploited by them in exchange of illegal gratifications.

In Pakistan at present however the corruption of the politicians is in focus much more than the lower level corruption which is irritating the common man. A seasoned professional manager had told me once that “when we vote for one candidate who has spent Rs20 million or more on his election campaign, we also stamp approval that he can recover his investment with interest.” Those of us who have the opportunity as journalists to visit the MNAs/MPAs home or offices in the morning have seen a number of people sitting in the waiting room with applications. I have done this exercise a few times and have seen that almost 80% people who have lined up from their constituency are asking for illegal favour. For example they pester for the appointment of their graduate son, who has passed in ‘D’ grade, as an official. Little do they care that they are actually trying to skip the recruiting system where they don’t have any chance. These people do not suffer from middle class morality issues that corruption and nepotism are immoral.

In all quasi-feudal and nascent capitalist societies the majority of politicians ‘live by politics’ looking for advantages; very few ‘live for politics’ that ‘is intrinsic or ideological satisfaction.” The system would take time to evolve we have to be patient and keep playing the role of a watchdog. But not of the wolf that devours the democratic system. As Churchill said it is “the worst of political system, except for all other.” Or as philosopher Noberto Bobbio once said it is “a better system than those that have preceded and succeeded.” Let’s be careful that once again we do not beat the corruption drum so loud that the sound of marching long-boots is missed by the nation. Remember the damage long-boots do is much larger and is writ with blood every day in the country and ‘having writ moves on’. (ayazbabar@gmail.com)

Regulators and economy (23-10-2009)

Societies that are in transition often find their various institutions battling with each other for more space. In Pakistan most of the institutions have not developed because their natural growth has been retarded by frequent interruptions of the democratic process by the extra-parliamentary forces.

At present the elected government’s space is being encroached by other institutions, which is against the constitution of Pakistan. In a civilized democracy there are three recognised pillars – parliament, executive and judiciary. The rise of media power has made it the fourth pillar. But more powerful than all these is the armed forces in the power structure of Pakistan, thanks to basic political formulation which was laid at the time of the formation of the country.

Now let’s see how these institutions are working in our country? How their conflicting interests are damaging the political, economic and social environment of the country?

A leading lawyer said yesterday that at present the superior judiciary is trying to run the government while it should be the job of the executive. Honourable judges it seems are of the view that they are being dragged to take up the public interest cases, because of the high expectations built during the pro-judiciary independence movement. But the issue is that they have to draw a line and should refrain from getting involved in issues like fixing sugar and petroleum products prices, although it is a popular thing to do. What has to be understood is that we are not running a socialist controlled economy. Market economy has its own ecology; nobody in the world has been able to dictate it through executive or judicial orders. The only way to keep the prices within the reach of the people is either through subsidy or by managing the supply side commodities which show a sharp price increase.

Again the judges should keep in mind that across the board subsidy has two major defects. One, it subsidises the rich and poor equally at the expense of the exchequer. As the country is short of finances the government then has to resort to borrowing from the banks, which creates inflation. And inflation my lord is the most cruel and blind form of taxation hurting everybody in the economy. So a diabetic not using any sugar has to finance the sweet-toothed people like me. In the past we have seen that the benefit of subsidizing basic commodities has always been reaped by the middle man. You can regulate a few mills, but cannot regulate the millions of grocery shops and middlemen.

Two, as we have seen in the case of sugar the court orders are not effective in the marketplace and they cannot be no matter how hard the government tries to follow them in letter and spirit. The sugar prices are almost 50 to 100% percent higher in the neighbouring countries so the sugar is flowing out of our porous borders. Again counter argument could be that it’s the failure of the government in checking smuggling. Here again we have to be realistic and pass orders that are taking in account the overall situation. We know all governments in Pakistan and in most of other countries have failed to check smuggling of commodities and human trafficking. At present sugar is being smuggled out to Afghanistan and India, cheap pharmaceuticals are smuggled to Bangladesh and many African countries. On the other hand a number of items are flowing in from Iran to Balochistan, from Afghanistan most of the goods imported by them through the transit trade are sold here and Indian goods are available in Anarkali Lahore.

Similarly, the courts should not get involved in issues like how much tax the government should levy on the petroleum products. I have checked petroleum prices of 12 countries of Asia including India, nowhere are petroleum prices less than Pakistan. In both developed and developing countries governments do raise the revenue through taxation of petroleum products. It is unpopular for me to say it. But as a political science and economics student, I cannot take any other position just for the sake of popularity. A journalist’s job is to analyse issues on the basis of hard economic and political facts, so that people are educated by the constraints under which systems work. Our job is not to seek cheap popularity. So while making the populist decisions Executive should handle what it should and should not trespass into the Judiciary’s space and vice versa. The judiciary should also be careful for the sake of its prestige to order what is possible and what is implementable.

We have already dealt in previous columns the issue that GHQ has always encroached on the powers of the political governments in the name of the national security. So I would not say much on this except that Mr. Zardari may have a million faults, but he was elected through a democratic process by our parliament and provincial government members. Any attempt to brow beat him out of office just because many among us don’t like him would once again derail the democratic process in the country. It seems from the influential quarters’ drawing rooms gossip and media reports that a script has been written to dislodge him without going through a difficult impeachment path.

The most popular script is that in the first place agencies would lobby with the parliament members against the NRO Bill. If at all Mr. Zardari, who it seems has not blinked so far gets the bill through, then preparations have been made to challenge the law in the Supreme Court on the ground that it is contradictory to the spirit of the Constitution. Now looking at the mood in the country and powerful decision-makers the market people say odds are against the bill. So if it is struck down the question comes what would be the position of the President. Most such cases are deemed as past and closed. Will Mr. Zardari get this relief? Can the cases which were not decided in 11 years be revived? These issues have again to be decided by the Supreme Court. Under the present circumstances chances of getting the relief are slim. Can Mr. Zardari invoke Presidential immunity? Senior constitutional experts say he can but again the question can be raised that this immunity is for the constitutional actions and not for private actions. Legal experts who are well aware of the prevailing mood say the latter view is likely to prevail.

So what are options for the beleaguered President Zardari? First option is that he should show traditional flexibility and accept the constitutional role which as envisaged by his founding Chairman Zulfikar Ali Bhutto. For that he will have to take a page from Chaudhry Fazal Elahi’s history. This may appease the real powers. He should not bank on the Americans for the support. History shows that while Ms. Bhutto was assured till the last moment by the American Ambassador, she was chucked out by Ghulam Ishaq Khan with the support of the Khakis. Second option is that he joins hands with Nawaz Sharif to strengthen his position. But that he will have to give the pound of flesh PML (N) wants. Third option, which I doubt he would go for is to leave the country and set up an effective party institution. He has to keep in mind that it’s not the army which can be blamed for the present situation; bad governance has given his opponents a window, which they now intend to widen. His other mistake is that he has also been encroaching on the powers of the Prime Minister. So he has been losing friends in his party rather than making them.

In this backdrop when the country is in a state of long drawn war. When the chances of this war, whether the establishment likes it or not is going to expand to other parts of the country, moves to destablise the democratic government are indeed a bad omen for the country. But unfortunately, many democracy lovers are also being led astray by their personal dislike of Mr. Zardari. And Mr. President himself is not helping his case either. (ayazbabar@gmail.com)

Surge in Terrorism (17-10-2009)

Surge in terrorist activities as a prelude to the military attack on South Waziristan was not a surprise to me. Those who follow this column can recall that in my forecast of 2008 and 2009, I was constrained to say it with heavy heart that the years ahead would be bloody. When worried friends and TV hosts usually ask about this I am afraid all I can say is that we should be prepared to fight the terrorists for a long time now and across the country whether we like it or not. Sad, but it is a hard reality.

The attack on GHQ was the major shock to the nation. Even three was with India nobody could reach our GHQ. Our brave army jawans, police and paramilitary forces have lost their lives fighting the terrorists, who were once nurtured by our establishment. Hundreds of innocent people are dying in the wanton violence unleashed by the Taliban-Jihadis consortium, which is operating in the country as a franchisee of the Al Qaeda.

Still some people have the gall to say that these rouges are fighting national liberation war. And that terrorism has rising here only because Pakistan is supporting US and allied forces occupation of Afghanistan. There is also an effort to give an ethnic colour to the terrorist organisations dividing them as Pashtun and Punjabi Taliban. Further down it is being said that South Punjab is the breeding ground of the Punjabi Taliban. Other line of simplistic argument is that all these people are foreign agents. Some leaders are even heard saying the people who are involved in killing innocent people cannot be Muslims, indirectly and mischievously implicating minorities.

In the first place Afghan and Pakistani Taliban’s terrorism should not be labeled respectfully as national liberation war. (There is enough literature which explains what can be described as national liberation struggle). Why? Because all national liberation forces are always very careful, while fighting the occupying forces that the common people of their country are not hurt. They do not go blowing innocent people and call that a collateral damage. Vietnamese fought the national liberation war for 30 years but they did not kill their own people. National liberation forces fight for the rights of their people, for the progress of the people and for independence of the people. The Taliban are fighting for bringing in the system which is politically, socially and economically primitive, which takes away the democratic rights of the people, which undermines the rights of women and minorities. We have seen them practicing fascist system in the grab of “true Islam.”

Secondly, let’s assume that the foreign forces leave Afghanistan, which they should, but not without helping Afghan government in establishing stability and a strong local army. If they leave Afghanistan say within a month, what will happen then? The country would once again go into a civil war between Taliban and various war lords. Pakistan will have to take the brunt of more Afghan refugees and the ills they brought in to this country in the 80s. If Mullah Omar re-establishes his regime, his Pakistani counterpart would get a booster and they would try to bring the Salafist Islam to Pakistan through the barrel of the gun. We know they do not believe in taking a democratic path. Such a situation would be a disaster for the people of Pakistan.

While making counter-insurgency strategy it may be worthwhile to study the ethnic background of the so called Pashtun and Punjabi Taliban, but the most important common factor among them should not be ignored – they all believe in one ideology and one cause — that bridges the ethnic divide. They believe in various shades of Deobandi/Wahabi/Salafist ideology. Their cause is to bring a bloody Islamic revolution in the country. So let’s not be naïve to believe that foreign powers are buying young people for Fidayeen and suicide attacks. I am not discounting that Indian and Afghan intelligence agencies are not involved in the Pakistan chaos at all.  But no foreign agency can be successful in any country unless people from within are fighting against their government for one reason or another. Such committed Islamic guerillas who despise the Indian and Afghan government cannot be used by them. However, the possibility of these government’s agent provocateurs within the ranks of Taliban and Jihadis cannot be ruled out.

Now the issue of “Punjabi Taliban or Jihadis.” Much has been written on them in the newspapers. We all know that most of Pashtun Taliban were allowed to operate freely because they were considered to provide support to Afghan Taliban, our ‘perceived strategic assets in Afghanistan.’ The Jihadi organisations that were nurtured in Punjab, Azad Kashmir and Sindh were considered India specific ‘assets’. They are perceived to be our only trump card against India till the Kashmir issue is resolved by them. So there is hesitance in the establishment to go against these Jihadi organisations. It is incorrect that they are only based in Southern Punjab. They are everywhere in the country. Yes some groups Jaish Mohammadi have their base in Bahawalpur area, but then a stronger organisation like LET have base in central Punjab. There is also equally powerful Harkat-e- Islam which is spread allover. And there is more ferocious Lashkar-e-Jhangvi which has struck each major city of the country. Commonality here is that all are Al Qaeda’s ideology supporters with minor leadership or sectarian differences.

In operations like GHQ, Musharraf, Benazir, Lahore attacks these organisations provided support to each other. While the Pakistan government and its army is fighting Pakistani Taliban heroically, they have yet not arrested the leaders of their counterparts in other provinces. They would not be able to avoid taking on the Jihadis for long. It’s inevitable as building circumstances would leave no choices very soon.

Monumental mistake is that no work is being done to counter the ideology of these terrorist organisations. The government has no communication strategy to win minds of the people against the lethal ideology of the Jihadi organisations. It is here the government is confused. The problem is genetic. Because Pakistan is an Islamic Republic (a contradiction in terms), so the Objectives Resolution a part of its Constitution, and hence the government cannot separate state from religion. Unless we can move towards a secular democracy various Islamist groups would continue have the space to fight for what they consider is ‘the true Islamic State.’ This has provided green-field to the Taliban and their Jihadi allies to preach and recruit Fidayeen and suicide bombers. This is the dilemma of the Pakistan society which makes it helpless in ideological fight with the extremist groups and their terrorist organisation. Irony is that there is no re-thinking on this issue although it is a major obstacle in building a democratic and prosperous Pakistan. (ayazbabar@gmail.com)

KL bill (08-10-2009)

Hyperbole reaction of a section of the military and their co-evolutionist media and opposition politicians against the ‘Enhanced Partnership with Pakistan Act 2009’ passed by the US Congress lately, has apparently defeated the basic objectives of the bill.

This bill was moved by Senator John Kerry and Richard Lugar following Joe Biden initiative. Some of the main objectives that are elaborated in the Statement of Principles of the official text are : “combating terrorism and violent radicalism, solidifying democracy and rule of law, and promoting the social and economic development of Pakistan; building “mutual trust and confidence by actively and consistently pursuing a sustained, long-term, multifaceted relationship between two countries, devoted to strengthening the mutual security, stability and prosperity of both the countries; to support the people of Pakistan and their democratic government in their efforts to consolidate democracy …”

So far so good. Then where does the problem start? Why is there so much opposition against accepting this aid (mind you it’s not a loan) package? True it is just about 4% of our total budget expenditure but it is the biggest portion of the US$5.28 billion assistance promised by the Friends of Pakistan. It is a reasonably good package for the development of Pakistan and it is separate from the military assistance which was being given under the arrangement with Musharraf government. If accepted by Pakistan it can lead to more investment and assistance from the western block that follows the US lead. That Pakistan should live within its means is another debate we should have some other time.

But the big question is what if it is turned down by the Pakistan government with a “no thank you” note which looks more likely now? What would be the impact of our relations with the US congressmen, senators and the present administration? Would it be possible to get it reviewed by going through a cumbersome process of putting it before the two US houses again? How these powerful members of the US houses would deal with issues related to us in future?

Now let’s analyse why this bill which was approved after hectic lobbying by Pakistan has provoked such a fierce opposition by some politicians and opinion-makers who take their cue from the khaki establishment. First we should address the questions raised above. At the very outset the answer to the last question, that can Pakistan expect the bill to be amended by the US Congress and Senate is that it is quite improbable. According to a senior US conservative journalist Clifford May, who was visiting Karachi last week, the possibility is that if sent back the bill may never be approved again. When I asked him if there is any precedent that such financial assistance has been rejected, if the recipient country has asked to change the language and US has obliged the request? He admitted that he could not think of any such example readily. I also failed to find such a piece of legislation on the net. Some analysts feel that President Obama can recommend the two houses to change the language of some of the clauses, but the issue is would the congressmen and senators agree. And if at all they do it may take ages to get the approvals again. Even this bill has been approved after two years.

So “No thank you” may cost a lot to Pakistan and she will still have to continue to serve the American interest on the current salary in which military aid is fatter than the civilian social sector assistance. The loss is that of the people of Pakistan not sovereignty spitting politicians and analysts.

Though it has been explained by the ruling party many times that this is not a treaty where Pakistan has a say to dictate the language, the media and opposition are still not ready to spare the government and Ambassador Haqqani. (A dear friend has blamed Haqqani because of his book that was published many years back which suggested establishing civilian control on the military establishment. It was this book that has actually washed his past political opportunism sins, so please don’t blame the book.)

What is conveniently forgotten is that these are not the conditions which are imposed on us; we can continue our ‘game’ leaving the US Secretary of State to testify that we are being good boys. Just to refresh the memory of our sovereignty-virgin analysts may I remind them that Pakistan continued its clandestine nuclear bomb project all through the Zia period and the US President did testify to the house for many years that we are not making it. The US needed us then and they need us more than the 80s now, because the heat of Afghanistan and Pakistan has reached the west before global warming.

The proposed act which needs to be signed by the US President within 10 days of the approval of both the houses is divided under three titles. Title 1- “Democratic, Economic, and Development Assistance for Pakistan” envisages to give $1.5 billion per annum to Pakistan for five years starting from 2010. No body in the right mind can have an issue with the areas mentioned in its statement principles for which this aid can be used. Two issues can be raised on the side: one that $15 million would be taken back by the US government for “availability of amount for administrative expenses … in connection with the provision of assistance and for the Chief of mission Fund.” Two, that in section 102 Authorisations of Appropriations” it has been stated in clause 1 (B) the President Special Representative to Afghanistan and Pakistan would certify every year that “assistance provided to Pakistan under this title or the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 to date has made reasonable progress toward achieving the principal objectives of the United States assistance.” Some anchors and analysts have called it viceroy type supervision.’ The critics must realise if any bank gives a loan or a person donates to a charity he/she wants to know whether the money donated/loaned has made any difference to the project or cause for it funds were provided.

The real issue which has ruffled the khaki feathers and co-evolution opinion-makers is with the “Title II—Security Assistance for Pakistan.” This is for the first time that military or security aid has been linked by the US with not only strengthening the democratic institutions, but also with the establishment of the supremacy of the civilian government over the military establishment. Now this is where they are blamed for being intrusive because it changes the power structure which has been there for over 50 years in Pakistan. As long as all the loans and aid was given for the military with strings it was acceptable with meek opposition. But when the military aid is linked with the certification that democratic government enjoys its due constitutional position or not, it’s blasphemy. Come on wake up democrats!

Clause b (3) of the section 202 Authorisation of Assistance says that the act restricts “assistance to the government of any country whose duly elected head of government is deposed by military coup or decree ….” The real problem which has hurt the ‘perceived national security interests’ of the Khaki and their co-evolutionists is in section 203 Limitations of Certain Assistance. Clause C (1) of this section says that the Secretary of State would have to certify to the US representative houses that “the Government of Pakistan is continuing to cooperate with the United States in efforts to dismantle the suppliers network relating to the acquisition of nuclear-weapon related materials, such as providing relevant information from or direct access to Pakistani nationals associated with such net works.” (emphasis added). This is where the US government failed to understand the sensitivity of Pakistani security establishment and the sensibilities of the majority of the people of Pakistan. Even military dictator General Musharraf did not provide direct access to the Americans to the persons associated with the nuclear programme of the country. Notwithstanding the fact as a pacifist I do not support nuclear weapons, I think the majority of Pakistanis take pride in it rightly or wrongly. Here again this certification has to come from the US Secretary and not from Pakistan. We can continue with the present arrangement where some information has been provided by Pakistan to the US about the network and refuse direct access to “associated person” as in the past.

Clause C (2 A) is also barbed-wired. It says: ceasing support, (emphasis added) including by any elements with the Pakistan military or its intelligence agency, to extremists and terrorist groups, particularly to any group that has conducted attacks against United States or coalition forces in Afghanistan, or against the territory or people of neighbouring countries;”   The phrase ‘ceasing support’ implies that our security forces are at present indulging in such activities which are illegal under the international laws. The American could have got the same objective by being more subtle, but then subtlety is not an American virtue. Many fellow-journalists, who are criticising this clause, have accepted in writing or on television that our security establishment considers Afghan Taliban and India specific Jihadis as their national security assets. This clause is directed against these ‘perceived assets.’ I have always maintained that our national security balance sheet would never be corrected if we would continue to register liabilities in the assets column.

Even sub-clause (B) says that the Secretary of State would have to certify that Pakistan is helping in “preventing Al Qaeda, the Taliban and associated terrorist groups, such as Lashkar-e-Tiaba and Jaish-e-Mohammad from operating in the territory of Pakistan ………dismantling terrorist bases of operations in other parts of the countries, including Quetta and Muridke….” Here again the tense of the composition shows that Pakistan has these bases at present. Those who oppose this clause have to be asked well isn’t that a fact? And isn’t Pak army fighting against a section of these terrorists selectively? So let’s be realistic and accept the fact the nation cannot sit back and suffer the national security policy, which has brought our society violence and intolerance. The reason that we have such dangerous policy is because no democratic government has been allowed to make its own pro-people national security policy. Of course army input is taken by all the countries but they are not allowed to over-rule the elected governments. In Pakistan if any political government has tried to deviate they have been booted out. So the political parties who are making all the hullaballoo should not forget that Mr. Nawaz Sharif was punished for the same reasons. It is because of this history of Pakistan that for the first time the Americans, who have been buddies of all military dictators, have shifted their policy in favour of a democratic dispensation. Sub-clause C (3) makes it clear that the US Secretary of State would have to certify every year that “the security forces of Pakistan are not materially and substantially subverting the political or judicial process of Pakistan.” Again Section 302 clause A (15) asks for the assessment from the US Secretary that “of the extent to which the Government of Pakistan exercises effective civilian control of the military …. oversight and approval of military budgets, the chain of command, process of promotion of senior military leaders …..”

Boy this is intrusive, shouts the anchor persons and khaki co-evolutionists! My humble submission is, Sir all this is in line with the spirit of the Constitution of Pakistan. All this is in the light of the lessons of Pakistan history, where Nawaz Sharif was shoved out of the prime minister house because he used his due powers to change the COAS. All this is in line with the fact that ISPR gives a public policy statement before the parliament of the civilian government who decides the policy. Only recently the general who differed on the Afghan policy of Gordon Brown first resigned and then gave statement of disagreement. India kept its Khakis out of politics because Nehru sacked a handful of generals when they gave a public statement against his China policy.

The political government did not lobby well to get these clauses watered-down because it suits them. The changing policy of the US in favour of an elected government is a welcome move. Those who have always stood by democracy and against army intervention in politics should not be detracted by anti-Americanism to join the band-wagon starting from Rawalpindi. We may have hundreds of differences with the present government, but we should not be pawns of undemocratic forces. Of all the people Nawaz Sharif’s party which has suffered twice should not be a party to this game just to score political brownie points. (ayazbabar@gmail.com)

NFC — too many roadblocks to go around (24-09-2009)

So even this time drawing a consensus for the 8^th National Finance Commission Award is still far from reach. In the first part of the article, we discussed that how difficult it is to resolve the conflicting interests of the four provinces and that of the provinces with the center. The present commission has also come to the same road blocks. It has formed a number of committees to find a way to go around these blocks by persuading all the conflicting parties to leave their maximalist positions.

The first major issue before the NFC is that that the provinces are asking the Federal government to take a sharp cut on its share from the present 55% of the revenue collected to 40%. Federal Finance Secretary Salman Siddiqui has reportedly opposed this idea. His contention is based on the given situation that the center has to foot the massive debt servicing bill, it cannot touch the sacred fat defense expenditure and it needs a large amount for infrastructure development. As a bureaucrat he is not expected to touch the political aspect of this conundrum: that the issue of provincial autonomy has to be sorted out first before suggesting any major change in the division of fiscal resources between Islamabad and the province.

Federal government budget can only be slashed by cutting down its bloated size. First, it has to be cut to the size that was envisaged in the Constitution for example by abolishing the ministries which are provincial subjects – education, health, agriculture and local bodies to name a few. No doubt there has to be coordination between the provinces on these important subjects. This job can be done by just a few officials in the Council of Common Interest secretariat by organising coordination meetings of all the provinces.

Second, the present constitution has to expand the quantum of autonomy to provide more space to the provinces; otherwise disenchanted provinces may adopt the path Balochistan nationalists have picked up. What our parliamentarians have to understand is that we are living in the era where a strong center cannot hold the federating units. The federating units have become mature and independent in the post-second war period in all the countries of the world. Belgium is holding its Flemish and Wallons parts together with great difficulty; Switzerland, one of the most ideal participative democracy is looking for more devolution; UK the mother of all democracies is faced with the independence referendum demand from Scotland nationalists; our next door neighbour India has been struggling to keep it’s seams from splitting. The regional parties of India which form the coalition exert their pressure in the ruling coalition to get their pound of autonomy, notwithstanding the constitutional barriers. Islamabad should learn from what is happening globally and cut its size. India was partitioned because Congress wanted a strong center and Pakistan lost East Pakistan for the same reasons. Now is the time to act before some foreign powers decide to help the independence movements in Sindh and Balochistan. By giving in to the provinces’ demand Islamabad would reduce its expenditure substantially and help in meeting their demands.

Smaller provinces have been demanding that the Federal government should only retain Defense, Communications, Foreign Affairs and currency as envisaged in the 1940 Pakistan Resolution. The fact that Mr. Jinnah accepted to the Cabinet Mission’s Plan much later with the same division of power between the center and the provinces also shows that he was for more autonomy. Initially East Pakistan leaders also demanded the same, but the obstinate establishment preferred to give away half the country in their lust of concentrating power.

Now let’s examine the position of the four provinces on the distribution of resources among the provinces. Most ticklish issue is that all the smaller provinces have been saying that a vertical division of fiscal resources on just population basis is not acceptable to them. They want a horizontal criteria giving due weightage to multiple criteria: collection of taxes, poverty and backwardness, inverse population growth, area and fiscal efforts, etc.

The first major roadblock is that Sindh demands a larger share on the basis of its claim that almost 60-70% taxes are collected from the province; hence collection of taxes should be given heavy weightage in the new distribution formula. Unfortunately, I was unable to find any proper study to support this argument. The ten percent difference in economic figures in the statements of many Sindh’s political leaders and bureaucrats shows that much of the demand is based on rhetoric.

In the 6^th NFC Punjab’s position was that population basis formula under which its gets 57.88% from the total divisible pool should not be changed. The position paper presented at the 6^th NFC clearly stated: “In summary, if the proposal of resource allocation on the basis of tax collection is accepted, it may invite retaliation from provinces that are negatively affected by it. This retaliation may inter-alia take the following forms:-

1. Imposition of taxes on inter-provincial movement of goods

2. Imposition of taxes on wholly-owned subsidiaries of companies with head offices registered in other provinces

3. Imposition of taxes on inter-provincial movement of capital

4. Establishment of separate tax collection infrastructure”

“This tax warfare between the provinces will have disastrous consequences for not only the federation but also for the provinces. The four economic freedoms enshrined in the Constitution will be undermined and the economic system based on a single common market will collapse. Sindh will lose the investment flows and access to markets while other provinces will lose markets for their goods and services. It is

therefore recommended that the proposal of Sindh may be shelved for the time-being and further research be conducted to evaluate its potential impact.

Punjab’s contention is right to the extent of corporate tax, customs duty and sales tax collected at import or at production level. As most of the large corporations and banks have their head offices in Karachi it cannot be said that the taxes paid by them are based on their income accrued from Sindh alone. Similarly, as major ports are in Karachi all the goods arriving are not for Sindh alone and same is the case with the sales tax on goods at the factory level.

However, of late Punjab has shown some signs of flexibility by agreeing that a multiple formula for the distribution of resources can be considered by the present commission. This flexibility is based on their claim that in absolute terms Punjab has a greater number of people who are below the povertyline; hence the benefit of the admissibility of the poverty criterion would be acceptable to them. At the same time in the last two decades Punjab’s industrial and commercial scene has also changed and a number of big businesses are situated in the province. Most recent being the shifting of the head offices of two major commercial banks to Lahore.

Sindh’s demand for giving weightage to the collection of taxes is justified when it comes to collection of individual income tax. Its demand that the collection of sales tax on services should be directly transferred to the provinces has strong constitutional basis. Clause 49 of the 4^th Schedule of the Constitution says: “Taxes on the sales and purchases of goods imported exported, produced, manufactured or consumed.” Thus while sales on goods is part of the Federal Legislative list, sales tax on the services is not mentioned in this list. Sindh and Punjab would be major beneficiaries of sales tax on goods if it is directly transferred to the provinces from where it is collected. They are thus pushing that sales tax on services should be on the basis of collection. But NWFP and Balochistan would be major losers if tax collection is given higher weightage in the new formula, as very little taxes are collected from these two provinces.

The NFC members have to first agree to the multiple criteria formula, then there would be struggle on what is to be included and how much weightage should be given to each criterion. All the provinces agree on poverty to be included as one criterion, but not on the weightage given to it in the total pool.

Though the NFC has a defined role of dividing the revenue collected by the federation to the provinces, its scope has been expanded and issues like distribution of royalties and taxes on gas & oil; profits on hydel electricity; cost of being a frontline province in war against terrorism are also under its consideration.

Here again Balochistan and Sindh have differences on the issue of division of gas development surcharge. Balochistan has a strong case as the gas produced by them is cheaper therefore its share in profits and taxes should be higher. The crude methodology at present is based on working out the profit (GDS) shares after working out the average well-head price. Under this formula Balochistan feels short-changed.

Another issue is of royalties from oil & gas. It is calculated on the basis of 12.5% and is transferred to the provinces since 1997. Balochistan wants that arrears should be paid to it as its gas has been used since 1953. As the benefit of this royalty does not reach the highly under-developed areas from where the oil and gas resource is drawn, I had proposed it to Prime Minister Shaukat Aziz that the provinces should give at least 20% to the district or Tehsil councils of the areas which produce oil & gas. This would not only reduce the influence of feudals and sardars of the hostile areas, but will also make them hospitable for exploration and production companies. This inequitable distribution among various districts is related to the wider issue of provincial finance commission awards. Provinces have been making a hue and cry about unjust division of resources by the center, and rightly so. But they have also been usurpers of the local government’s financial rights. An issue we should discuss some other time.

Balochistan also wants that all the revenue from the Gwadar port, Saindak and other mines should go to the province. This demand should be supported by Sindh also. As the port income should be shared with the respective provinces where they are located by the federal government.

Pakhtunkhwa’s demand that it should be paid arrears of electricity royalty is genuine and it seems that the Finance Minister has managed to satisfy them to a certain extent. Their other demand that the Pakhtunkhwa should be provided additional help for being the frontline province is just, but assistance in this regard has to come from grants and special subvention funds. Much of this is dependent on the promised foreign funding.

Coming back to what should be the formula for the distribution of resources, we should first look at the neighbour next door (if that can be of help for our commission members) which has now some 30 provinces compared to 23 carved out in the Nehru era. (Some day Pakistan will also have to carve out new provinces). In India income tax and excise duty is divided on the following criteria: population 10%; poverty 62%; and then area, index of infrastructure, tax efforts and fiscal discipline are given equal weightage of 7.5% each.

In Pakistan, 2002 NFC did an exercise by drawing different scenarios in which population weightage in the divisible pool ranged from 55 to 65%. (It may be noted that majority of the countries in the world have multiple formulas, and not just the population based criterion as it prevails in Pakistan). Other factors weightage taken by 2002 papers were revenue collection 15%; area 15%, fiscal effort 15%. When the share of provinces was worked out on this basis, 55% of the total pool to be divided on population basis, it was found out that Punjab would have to take a cut of about 10% (its share under this formula would come down from the present 57% to 47%). Other loser would be Pakhtunkhwa (note hydel profits are not included here). And the gainers would be Sindh and Balochistan by about 5 and 2 percent respectively.

Now the questions which are still before the 8^th NFC are: Will the federal government cut its share drastically from the present 55% to 40%? And will Islamabad give away sales tax on services to the provinces? In both cases it seems unlikely. Will Punjab agree to a multiple factors formula which will reduce its share by 10%? With Shahbaz Sharif there it is not probable, in spite PML (N) talk about giving due rights to the provinces. Will Sindh give in to the just demand of Balochistan and settle the GDS issue? And will Sindh accept its oft repeated claim that 70% taxes which are collected from the province is unsubstantiated? Hype built by nationalists in Sindh will make it difficult for the pliable Sindh government to give in a lot.

Thus the task before Finance Minister Shaukat Tarin is much more complex and difficult. And he has no magic wand to say hereafter all will live happily together! All the parties have to rise above their respective maximalist positions and try to move towards an equitable formula in the interest of the provinces of the federation. No single party would be able to get the maximum in one go. So move ahead here please and then try to amend the Constitution for greater autonomy – that’s the only way forward. (ayazbabar@gmail.com)