Reality check

Reality check

Author: By Humayun Gauhar

March 10, 2013 on 1:25 AM

The hypocrisy of calling Pakistan an Islamic state must stop

My purpose is not to spread doom and gloom. Rather, it is to provide reality checks as I see them best. I haven’t lost hope and neither should you. As I said last week in ‘Children of a Lesser Evil’, if one has faith it would be impossible to lose hope because one would know that it is tantamount to denying the Creator and His munificence.

Our most important reality check without which we will not improve is that unless we know the truth about ourselves and accept that Muslims are 200 years behind the most knowledge-based societies we will never understand how our societies got crafted so badly and not know how to reform them. The world is progressing while we are regressing.

Hardly anyone understands the global dynamic, how it is changing the world and we are being mindlessly swept along with it. Those who think they do provide proof that they do not by their theorizing, narratives and rhetoric. Instant journalese, tired old theories, hearsay, superficial propaganda often unleashed by intelligence agencies and lapped up by the media, drawing room chatter and everyone trying to demonstrate that they have ‘inside information’ informs their thinking. When even those at the helm are lost, interested only in acquiring power and pelf by any means, how can the passengers of a rudderless ship know where they are headed? They tend to fall for the prima facie, the tip of the iceberg instead of trying to look at the entire iceberg and often crash into it. I don’t blame them entirely. Who has the time when at the end of each day fighting for survival people are left breathless, mindless, switch on their television sets and absorb the brainless drivel bombarded at them without let? If you wish to think then stop listening like androids to the hogwash on television and free yourselves of the tyranny of the media and the instant ‘knowledge’ and ‘information’ it disseminates and reclaim your thought process. More important than listening is thinking.

Global change is in fast-forward: the Leviathan is morphing, convulsing, shedding its old skin and acquiring a new one. Every new skin is called the ‘New World Order’. The catalyst of the Leviathan’s morph is the perpetual global dynamic that determines the forces of history that influences thinking, doctrines, strategies and policies, not the other way round, though many think that it is.

The truth is far different, sometimes horrifying, sometimes thrilling, for underlying horror and thrill are man’s innate stupidity and native intelligence. It was highly intelligent to discover atomic fusion but it was extremely stupid to use it for destruction in the name of protection. Man has always used knowledge for good and evil. That is how he is made and that is how he will remain for God has given him free will and the option to choose between right and wrong. Often man chooses wrong on the basis of some religion, ideology or belief system that has almost always been mutilated and adulterated from its pristine original in pursuit of influence, power and hegemony for control over resources and wealth. We Muslims have almost entirely lost our ability to tell between right and wrong, good and evil, because we have abdicated our understanding of God’s Word to fake men of religion as distinct from men of Faith.

As I have thought about it I am coming to the conclusion that the greatest damage to humankind has been done by men of assumed piety peddling religions and wannabe revolutionaries touting ideologies by passing themselves off as scholars and politicians. Sadly, half-baked, semi-literate scholars are in the majority while genuine scholars are becoming a decreasing majority. Because their education is by rote fake scholars have gathered information without understanding. They thus use if for selfish ends, to help countries and churches acquire illegitimate power over their own peoples and flocks and impose dominion over others. If they truly were men of knowledge they would not have religion but Faith, for Faith is God’s Word while religion is a collection of dogma, customs and ritual – often fabricated – run by bureaucrats called clerics in an institution called church or de facto churches as in Islam that recognizes no church or clergy. But Muslim ‘scholars’ turned de facto clerics have established de facto churches that go by the name of movements and sects, each with its own Sharia or roadmap of the correct path. They wage war on one another and divide Muslims, just as many churches have divided Christianity.

True scholars would know that in the next life there is no religion, only God, no body or gender, just heightened consciousness that we call spirit or soul – ‘Nafs’ in Quranic Arabic. Real scholars would also know that since there is no intermediary between man and God there is no room for clerics for they have made religion into politics and business for power and pelf. Its not just Muslims: look at the shenanigans of the Vatican and you will understand what I say. So too with mystics and their graves: they can give you nothing nor can they intercede on your behalf with the Almighty. And their often-craven progeny most certainly cannot for piety does not come with the genes. Perhaps it was to discourage the heredity of piety that God did not give sons to any Prophet except Adam and Abraham. If the rest had any they died. This should tell you at the very least that dynasticism of any kind if abhorrent to God.

Muslims should also know that the only politics in Islam is revolutionary politics. The beneficiaries of an iniquitous status quo are predators: to protect it through western electoral politics it was natural for them to give revolution a bad name for self-preservation. Revolution is not about killing and maiming but perpetually changing the status quo for the better, keeping it dynamic and constantly improving the human condition. Else what else is the purpose of societies and states, politics and power?

They would also know that secularism is inherent in Islam, but the fakes have deliberately mistranslated ‘secular’ as ‘La Deeniyat’ or ‘faithlessness’ whereas secular means temporal, worldly and has to do with man’s behaviour and the laws he lives under in this world. The Quran is full of secular injunctions that were mostly revealed after the Prophet’s (pbuh) migration to Medina because then Muslims had a state of their own (not a necessity in Islam, by the way) and the Prophet (pbuh) was its head and military commander apart from being its spiritual head and guide. Islamic secularism is wide and has to do with how to live our lives, about etiquette, behaviour, laws etc. The Christian concept of secularism is narrow – separation of church and state – and cannot thus be imposed on Muslims there being no church in Islam. But what the fake scholar fears is separation between state and mullah and his misinterpretations of God’s Word.

Others say that true secularism is separation of state from the spiritual. But that is impossible: even those states that say that they are secular are not entirely so, else why would the US dollar say, ‘In God We Trust’ and the Queen of England also call herself ‘Commander of the Faith’ – very close to ‘Ameer ul Momineen’. Even communist societies have had to give way to the spiritual and sadly to organized religion. When spiritualism and secularism have a symbiotic relationship how can one separate them? Those that have tried have fallen flat on their faces. When you cannot take the spiritual out of man how can you take it out of his state and society? Without man the concept of state and society becomes meaningless and with man spiritualism is inherent.

If you don’t like what I say stop hypocritically calling Pakistan as an Islamic republic because by so doing you have laid such a heavy responsibility on yourself that you don’t have the capacity to meet because mentally you are still enslaved to western political and social constructs and behave like Black Minstrels. However, so long as you keep describing Pakistan as an Islamic state you will be judged by the measure of your Islamicity as a state. This and this measure alone is the measure of an Islamic state as enjoined in the Quran. We have been measured and weighed and found wanting. In 65 years we have amply proved that we have neither honesty, nor understanding or capacity to be an Islamic republic. In most respects except in public morality western societies are more Islamic in their treatment of their own people than any Muslim state. If we don’t hypocritically call ourselves an Islamic state, we the people will not stop being accidental Muslims by birth and will continue with our rituals and customs, our spiritual thought process hostage to mullahs of mind-bending hues in which the essence and spirit of Islam is nowhere to be found while our political thought processes remain hostage to western political constructs. Or take religion, not Faith, out of statecraft as 54 out of 57 Muslim majority countries have done and lessen your burden. A donkey cannot carry what an elephant can.
The writer is a political analyst. He can be contacted at humayun.gauhar786@gmail.com

The lost half of a decade

S Iftikhar Murshed Sunday, February 17, 2013

The ruling coalition in Pakistan ceaselessly brags that it is the first "democratically elected" government that will be completing its term. As the curtain rings down on its five-year tenure, it expects the world to applaud. Providence has been kind to the PPP-led dispensation, which has escaped being scorched by the vicious fires that it has been largely responsible for igniting. Three interlocking reasons are immediately identifiable for its survival.

The first, and most important, is the decision of the military establishment to stand aloof from the foibles of the inept and corrupt civilian government. The chief of the army staff, Gen Ashfaq Parvez Kayani, adopted a policy of ‘splendid isolation’, a concept that was crafted by Benjamin Disraeli and the Marquis of Salisbury in respect of 19th century Europe. In the context of Pakistani politics, Kayani, a realist par excellence, understood only too well that there was no alternative to a hands-off approach.

The people of Pakistan had had enough of military rule and yearned for a civilian dispensation. Bitter memories of the past come stealing into the mind like a dreaded phantom. It seems only the other day when, on October 7, 1958, President Iskander Mirza abrogated the 1956 constitution – which had taken nine years to be drafted – and imposed martial law.

His justification was: “It is said that the constitution is sacred, but more sacred is the country and welfare and happiness of the people.” It is strangely ironical that a day after the Supreme Court, under Justice Muhammad Munir, validated Iskander Mirza’s action citing the doctrine of necessity in its verdict on the Dosso case, he was ousted and sent into exile by Gen Ayub Khan.

Nineteen years later, after toppling the Bhutto government on July 5, 1977, Gen Ziaul Haq declared: “The constitution is just a scrap of paper which can be thrown in the dustbin at any time.” Three decades on, nothing had changed. On November 3, 2007, the chief of the army staff and president, Pervez Musharraf, imposed emergency, suspended the 1973 Constitution and issued the Provisional Constitutional Order. With insufferable self-assurance he proclaimed: “The country is more important than the constitution or democracy.”

These men, mounted on sturdy stallions, thought themselves the saviours of the country. Yet they had all pledged: “I do solemnly swear that I will bear true faith and allegiance to Pakistan and uphold the constitution...I will not engage myself in any political activities...” Gen Kayani, however, was not contaminated by the messiah complex that had infected his predecessors.

He reckoned correctly that military intervention, under any pretext, would have resulted in Pakistan being quarantined and isolated as a pariah state. This would have had terrible consequences for the country, which is heavily dependent on external assistance. Gen Kayani readily concedes that the core ingredient for national security is a robust economy. On April 18 last year he told the media: “You cannot be spending on defence alone and forgetting about development.” In a perverse sense, the incompetent ruling coalition, by rendering the country hugely reliant on foreign aid, has unwittingly ensured that there will be no military takeover!

The second reason for the survival of the PPP-led government is the decision of the Supreme Court to never again validate any abrogation of, or deviation from, the constitution. Yet the track record of the judiciary has not been entirely aboveboard. Besides the controversial judgement in the Dosso case, some of the other decisions of the apex court show that, in the past, it has been influenced by extraneous factors.

In the Maulvi Tamizuddin case in 1955, for instance, the Federal Court under Justice Munir upheld the dismissal of the Constituent Assembly. In the Asma Jilani case of 1972, the Supreme Court declared Yahya Khan a usurper, though barely three years earlier, it had validated his assumption of power. Some of the same judges later endorsed Ziaul Haq’s coup, and subsequently sent the ousted Zulfikar Ali Bhutto to the gallows.

Similarly, Musharraf’s toppling of the Nawaz Sharif government was rubberstamped by the Supreme Court which included the present chief justice. Later, the court validated the 17th Amendment of December 2003 which confirmed Musharraf as president and allowed him to continue as army chief.

After six tumultuous decades, the judiciary has finally come into its own. The process started with Musharraf’s sacking of Chief Justice Iftikhar Mohammad Chaudhry on March 9, 2007. This set in motion an unprecedented tidal wave of popular support for the ousted chief justice and resulted in his reinstatement by a Supreme Court bench headed by Justice Khalilur Rahman Ramday on July 20, 2007.

But the high drama continued. Emergency was imposed by Musharraf and judges who refused to take oath under the Provisional Constitutional Order of November 3, 2007, which included the chief justice and Ramday, were ousted and placed under virtual house arrest. Thus, in a mere eight months, Chief Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry had been treacherously dismissed twice by an army dictator.

This convinced him after he was reinstated for a second time to never validate any ‘constitutional deviation’ again. Thus, on July 31, 2009, a 14-member bench of the Supreme Court declared the November 2007 emergency “unconstitutional, unauthorised and without any legal basis...” The immediate reaction of the Presidency was that the judgement was “a triumph for democratic principles, a stinging negation of dictatorship and is most welcome.”

Several months ago, Justice Ramday said that the new-found independence of the judiciary is derived entirely from popular support. “The courts,” he added, “are not equipped with tanks, guns and fighter planes. Their strength lies in the people... if anybody plays around with the judiciary the people will not accept it. Military coups are no longer possible and the government should therefore be able to complete its term. The rest depends on the internal political dynamics of the country within the parameters of the constitution.”

Here again the ruling coalition was singularly fortunate because the main opposition leader, Nawaz Sharif, who heads his own faction of the Muslim League, had also been humiliatingly ousted by the military. He was, therefore, as determined as the chief justice not to allow the derailment of the elected government. In the process Sharif’s reputation, perhaps unfairly, was tarnished as the leader of the ‘friendly opposition’. This restraint was the last of the three interlocking factors that has enabled the ruling coalition to muddle through its inglorious innings.

In this period, the currency has plummeted to an all-time low of Rs100 to the dollar. As of January 31 foreign exchange reserves stood at $8.7 billion – way below the minimum level of $10 billion recommended by the IMF. In addition, the country has to repay the IMF $3.4 billion in 2012-13, $3.43 billion in 2013-14 and $1.35 billion in 2014-15.

The desperate economic situation has impacted on ordinary people, who measure time by throbs of pain and anguish. Loadshedding, and consequently burgeoning unemployment, accompanied by spiralling inflation, have taken their toll. Last month, 45-year-old Muhammad Qasim of Faisalabad shot his wife and five children in their sleep and then killed himself after losing his job because of the power crisis. On average, three such heart-rending tragedies occur every single day.

For the last 65 years, Pakistan has limped on from crisis to crisis. On Wednesday the Supreme Court snuffed out an attempt by Tahirul Qadri, the self-righteous leader of the Tehreek-e-Minhajul-Quran, to replace the existing Election Commission of Pakistan with a new one. Had his petition not been rejected, it could have resulted in the postponement of the coming elections. It is not possible to predict what will happen in the weeks ahead.

The only certainty is that the government will continue to project the completion of its five-year term as a triumph for democracy. But these years have been shameful and are, undoubtedly, the lost half-decade in the country’s history.

The writer is the publisher of Criterion Quarterly. Email: iftimurshed @gmail.com

Democracy or Bust

By: Khurshid Akhtar Khan | February 17, 2013

Democracy has been portrayed by our politicians as the cure for all evils. Nothing could be more fallacious than this. Democracy is just a system of governance of which parliamentary democracy is one form, inherited by us from the British Raj. On its own, it does not offer the solution for anything. To get results, it has to be coupled with good governance administered by competent men and women, chosen through the process of elections by politically aware and free thinking electorate. If people fail to elect the right people - democracy fails.
We have seen many systems come and go in our country. Four military coups introduced systems that initially transferred the command to army personnel over the civilians.  The induction of army officers could not be sustainable for longer periods and had to be stopped after brief spells. Most of the lower rank army personnel were gradually withdrawn barring the key positions. Soon, public representation through elections became inevitable and some kind of democratic system had to be put in place.
The military-backed controlled democracies resulted in better infrastructural development, order and prosperity. The downsides were, however, starker, as we lost half of the country, religious extremism soared and the attempt at creating national harmony utterly failed. Each experiment was eventually followed by civilian democracy. The realisation has finally sunk into all segments of society that free and fair democratic form of government envisaged by our founding fathers has to be made to work. Let it evolve with time.
The last five years of the most unadulterated democracy our country has seen have been poorly managed, resulting in nothing but chaos. Too much freedom too soon with a void of ideology has bred contempt for each other. Unity, faith and discipline have been eroded. In this acrimonious, free for all and uncontrolled environment everyone is trying to undermine the other. Misuse of authority is rampant. There is total lack of determination and foresight to check those who disrupt peace by using arms or plan to sabotage the system for ulterior motives. People are beginning to wonder if it is democracy or anarchy.
What happened in Lahore on Sunday, February 10. An innovative public transport system completed with 11 months of rigorous construction work and exemplary public cooperation was being inaugurated, attended by tens of foreign ambassadors and dignitaries. At the same time, at a stone’s throw, an opposition party stalwart was encouraging the rebellious young doctors to carry the protest to the venue of the festivities. Should responsible citizens be accessories to creating situations with a distinct potential of disorder (notwithstanding the merit of the right to protest)? When can we learn to recognise achievements and be proud of them?
Earlier in the month of January, a firebrand with sworn allegiance to a North American country descended on the capital out of the blue and held the city hostage assisted by thousands of his followers, to make demands that may not be his business. What a nation are we that go down on its knees to any frivolous mob challenge with clear mala fide intentions. How can such a timid government hold high its head and its credentials?
It had to be the Supreme Court of Pakistan that lent a twist in the tale of the short rise and rise of Dr Tahirul Qadri. What others were talking mutely was taken upfront, cornering the eloquent scholar. Can a fly-by-night dual national, resident abroad, suddenly appear and challenge the constitutional provisions, is a question needed to be discussed threadbare to remove ambiguities. Who else could do it better than the Supreme Court, once it had inadvertently been thrown in their domain. That it did in a befitting manner by first questioning the motives.
Indeed, overseas Pakistanis are an undeniable asset. However, many of these are now into third and fourth generations for whom the native country of their elders is little more than folklore. Most of them who have acquired a foreign citizenship will never return to live permanently in their former homes. Their sympathies, love and attachment may stay with their origins, but their loyalties will rest with the country where their future lies. In case of a hypothetical clash of interests between the two nations, pragmatism and survival instincts will not allow them to go against their adopted countries.
The billions of dollars remitted by overseas Pakistanis that props our economy is cited as an argument for special favour, as we tend to weigh priorities, relationships and loyalties in terms of money due to our material instincts that have deeply infiltrated our thinking.
One forgets that firstly, it is this country that provided them the background, skills and education at considerable expense to the exchequer that enabled them to do so. Secondly, the percentage of the remittance from the dual nationals is less than 10 percent of the total - the balance comes from other patriotic Pakistanis in the Middle East, whose ties are relatively more interlinked to their homeland. Thirdly, the track record of most of the high profile dual nationals in the service of this country has not been that bright.  Fourthly, this factor of easy money has added to our complacency in striving to achieve self-reliance like other foreign assistance programmes. True loyalty springs without any strings attached.
The press and television media sometimes does a disservice to the nation by blowing up unnecessary controversies and uncertainties in an environment that is already volatile. This is not to say the politicians are in any way slack in providing them enough ammunition to fire. An ineligible Fata resident, who is not a registered voter of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, is appointed as its Governor in an appalling display of incompetence at the highest levels. A regional party gets uninterrupted coverage on television channels that received veiled threats and insults routinely hurled against opponents.
Meanwhile, our elected President is defiantly flouting the impartiality of his august office by active involvement in party affairs and practically heading its election campaign. Oblivious to previous charges of mega corruptions that he should be endeavouring to obliterate, reportedly, he accepts a gift of billion rupee worth of property in Lahore.    
The economic indicators have never been worse. Discipline is in tatters. Respect for law is minimal. Mutual recriminations and lack of cooperation among institutions and individuals are at their peak. Political parties thrive more on creating divisions in order to strengthen their own positions than promoting national unity to strengthen the country. Polarisation among regions, religious sects, ethnic and linguistic groups has reached alarming proportions. Disintegration of the country has never appeared more distinct a possibility than now.
Elections 2013 present an opportunity to demonstrate our maturity and conviction in the democratic form of government by full participation and by following our conscience to elect the right candidates. It also presents a test of whether have evolved as true democrats or are still entangled in the biradri, feudal and money culture. Let there be no doubt that the worst democracy where people have freedom of expression is better than the best dictatorship where people’s spirits and thought process are stifled.
The writer is an engineer and an entrepreneur. Email: k.a.k786@hotmail.com

Evolution and Revolution

PAKISTAN TODAY
Sunday 10th February 2013
Humayun Gauhar
Feeling depressed after my last article? I do sometimes too, but don’t be, for it is darkest before the dawn, though it might not be the sort of dawn you envisage. Someone wrote saying that “brilliance lies in simplicity”. Sure it does, but not in the simplistic. We often confuse the two.
What is unraveling is the system, not the state, though if after a system’s failure we cannot forge a better system by forging a new social contract within the context of the state, the state too will fail. Then new states will be made, as they were in 1947 and 1991, with new social contracts, however airy-fairy. That will be sad, but then states do disappear. Consider how many states have existed on the land on which you live. What really matters are the land and the people living on it. States are manmade, not God-made. Manmade things have a finite life, for human ingenuity is finite, though in my dark moments I sometimes feel that human stupidity is limitless. God-made things live till God wills them to live, and some live on forever in other forms.
Being attached to the material is human, but not to the extent that it detracts from our love of God, which is primary. We take what we have for granted and forget to thank Him for the Faith He has given us and health, happiness and peace of mind. If we don’t have these everything else becomes meaningless. These days people say to me, “Oh, Humayun, you look so much better” while I’m feeling terrible inside. When I was feeling great people would say, “You don’t look so good, Humayun.” You have to feel good inside no matter how bad you may look on the outside. How deceptive looks can be. If we don’t have health and peace of mind, what can wealth, shiny cars and palatial houses do for us? If we don’t have Faith, what do we look forward to? Oblivion? Faith is to look forward to union with the Supreme Creator and the best place in the next world, which is the real world. This world is but a dream and everything worldly is ephemeral. It matters little.
One cannot help being human though. With life and the world in such turmoil my pensive moments have morphed into melancholy. It occurs with such increasing regularity that I fear that melancholy may become permanent till one feels that life isn’t worth living. But that is to be an ingrate: life, however ‘good’ or ‘bad’, is the greatest gift from God. The mystic would say that what is considered ‘good’ in this world is actually bad or irrelevant in the next and what is considered ‘bad’ is actually good. We should be grateful for living through such tumultuous global change and witnessing history in the making at fast-forward. I wouldn’t miss it for a second. Thank God that one is alive today.

I am sharing these thoughts with you because I know that if you have a working brain, which you do, you must sometimes be melancholic too. Look upon it as catharsis, otherwise melancholy might descend into ‘alcoholy’. What could be more exciting than what is happening today, if only we could step back from our own imaginary self-made reality and look at things objectively? Mental and emotional distance helps one to see the wood from the trees and realize that we leave this world as we came into it – naked, pocketless and empty-handed. All we will take are the intentions behind our deeds – ‘good’ or ‘bad’ – and the knowledge that we have gathered and digested. Intentions and knowledge need no pockets or bank accounts. They need only the mind, and the better it is the better for us.
Now, back to ‘reality’. We saw last week that the root of our problems is the evaporation of our social contract that our constitution is supposed to be based on. None of our three constitutions have been faithful to our social contract – to make a democratic homeland as an Islamic welfare state for the Muslims of India in which every citizen is equal regardless of faith, religion, gender, race or colour. Our current constitution made by a rump assembly of losers is so full of hypocrisy piled upon more hypocrisy and contradictions piled upon more contradictions by successive governments for their own advantage that it has become irrelevant and unworkable. No wonder our political and economic systems born of this hypocritical-unworkable constitution are hurtling towards their demise so fast that it leaves one breathless. A few more years and the system and the status quo it protects and perpetuates will be dead and gone and may it go to Hades and take its few beneficiaries with it. Ameen. Then, hopefully, a new social contract will emerge and give rise to a new constitution and a better system.
That is why I have been saying: let this system continue to its logical conclusion through evolution. But there are some spoilers who would wish the coming elections postponed on some constitutional pretexts, even though they have no representative character because they or their parties are not even in any parliament. Sure they proclaim that their objective is not to delay elections but to ensure that the constitution is followed faithfully. Why didn’t it occur to them earlier? Why now, when elections are upon us? Is this hypocrisy, because they are unlikely to score well if elections are held? Mark my words: if elections are postponed the country could fall apart. Which suits no one, least of all our neighbours and Russia and America, which needs exit from Afghanistan like yesterday and cannot without a stable Pakistan. This is the glue that is keeping us together – too dangerous to disintegrate. The fallout could engulf the region from Turkey to Burma and change geographies.
What has happened is through evolution, not revolution. During this time people have learned more than I would have imagined five years ago. So don’t close their school of life down for God’s sake. Now you understand why I have been saying that the system should be allowed to continue till it self-immolates and hopefully a beautiful new phoenix emerges from its ashes. Try and bring revolution without a workable ideology, without ideologues, without a vanguard and without sacrifice and all you achieve is anarchy, making this system a martyr and prolonging its life. Again: witness Egypt, Libya and Tunisia. Their imported western electoral systems have failed on the launching pad and what is emerging is an ogre.
Where did we go wrong? It goes back to before Partition but that can wait. All three of our constitutions lacked legitimacy. All were made by the consensus of the oppressor. Our first Constituent Assembly was elected in another country – India before Partition. Many of its MPs left their constituencies behind in leftover India. If I remember correctly, India held an election soon after independence to make its parliament fully representative. So did Bangladesh. We didn’t. Our first national elections were held in 1970, 23 years after independence.  By the time the 1956 constitution was made the character of the Constituent Assembly had changed drastically at the hands of our first bureaucratic dictator who stuffed it with many unelected. It took nine years to find a device to deprive the majority of its majority. It was an anti-democratic abomination, not a constitution. To justify it we mutilated West Pakistan by making its four provinces into one.
Our second constitution was made along misunderstood US lines and imposed by a military ruler who adopted the worst features of the first constitution because the oppressor had to be kept in control of all levers of power. As soon as he bit the dust his constitution bit the dust.

Our current constitution has the same sad story as the 1956 constitution. The 1970 elections were held in another country. The 1973 constitution was made in another country. The 1970 elections were held in the original Pakistan. The 1973 constitution was made for the ‘New Pakistan’ by legislators elected in the original Pakistan. No fresh elections were held. How can a majority secede from a minority? What if the East Pakistanis had decided to call their new country Pakistan instead of Bangladesh? We made the 1973 constitution after chasing the majority out even at the cost of breaking the country just so the Bengalis don’t come to power. The myth is that it is made by a majority of leftover Pakistan, not the minority. This is a zero-sum game. By this logic the MQM could say that since they are the majority in Karachi they will make a constitution for Karachi. At this rate we will go down to zero. The myth is that it is made by consensus. Consensus between whom: a minority of legislators comprising mostly bloodsucking tribal warlords and feudal robber barons? It is a rehash of the colonial British India Act of 1935 and has nothing to do with our original social contract of 1947. In 1971, when the country broke, our social contract broke too and has not been replaced by a coherent one. All we have is polarization: are you pro-Bhutto or anti-Bhutto? Pathetic. That is what dynastic politics does to you, forces you to mindlessly follow icons. So let the system continue and let us learn the hard way till realization dawns. Then and only then there will be revolution.

By Peter Jones 
| 2/11/2013 12:00:00 AM   Dawn

TRACK-two diplomacy has been active in South Asia for many years. Proponents argue that it can cut through the red tape of conventional diplomacy.

Critics argue that it is both a useless waste of time, and a sinister plot often making these contradictory arguments in the same breath.

In reality track two is simply a mechanism to bring together people from different sides of a conflict to talk about issues and try to develop new ideas.

Track two exists on many levels and for many purposes.

Some projects bring together those close to the centres of power. Other track-two projects are targeted at the civil society level with the objective of promoting broader change on a societal level.

Still others involve professional groups attempting to influence policy.

My own experience of facilitating track-two discussions has tended to be at the level of retired officials, working on issues close to those being considered by governments. So my comments here will speak to that kind of track two. But readers should be aware that there are many kinds of different activities that go on under the name.

The term `track-two diplomacy` was first coined by Joseph Montville in 1981. In my view, a fundamental mistake was made by adding the word `diplomacy`. It conveys the idea that this is somehow a diplomatic activity. It is not.

Those engaged in track two should never succumb to the idea that they are engaged in secret negotiations.

What they are there to do is to work with people from the other side to develop new ideas and understandings around dispute settlement. In practice, track two tends to bedefined by a recurring set of concepts which arise in studies of various examples.

They emphasise small, informal dialogues between people in conflict, which are often facilitated by an impartial third party; though the dialogues are unofficial, it is generally expected that the participants are able to innuence thinking in their societies; the dialogues are not meant to debate current positions, but rather are workshops where the participants step back from official positions to explore the underlying causes of the dispute in the hope of jointly developing alternatives; the dialogues are ongoing processes, rather than one-off workshops; and while not exactly secret, are conducted quietly to create an atmosphere where outsidethe-box thinking can flourish.

Such processes, if successful, can lead to a number of results. Amongst these are: 

changed perceptions of the conflict, including a greater appreciation for the domestic politics and red lines of the other side; opening new channels for communication between adversaries; the identification and development of new options; and the development of networks of influential people who work to change views in their countries. A key to success in track two involving people working on issues close to the official agenda is that the participants be able transfer their ideas to the official sphere. This is harder than it seems. Officials are instinctively wary of ideas coming from outside the bureaucracy; sometimes with reason, and sometimes because they fear the loss of control. Thus, these processes often enlist as participants people who have credibility in the of ficial world and are familiar with how things are done there, but who can think outside the box as they are no longer officials.

There is no guarantee that governments will accept ideas developed in track two, whoever the participants may be. In practice, ideas often enjoy the most traction if they come along at those rare moments when the system is looking for new approaches.

More subtly, however, track two can work to help create such ripe moments by demonstrating that new thinking is possible and developing cadres of credible people who advocate new approaches.

Reliance on such `influentials` carries with it further issues. First, such track two can be dominated by a small elite who are too similar in their thinking. This leads to the second problem, known as the autonomy dilemma. This holds that, although reliance on influential elites means that results can be more easily transferred to the official process, outside-the-box thinking may be in short supply.

However, gathering a really autonomous group can lead to more independent thinking, but the ability of such processes to transfer their results to the inner sanctum is limited if participants are not known or trusted by officials. There is no easy answer to the problem posed by the autonomy dilemma, other than to be aware of it and work to make sure that the discussions do not degenerate into an exchange of official positions.

Of course, those who specialise in track-two projects aimed at change on the civil society level would argue that concern over the autonomy dilemma is misplaced. In their view, official policy willchange only after the societies in question have changed official policy will then catch up.

Thus, over-concern for how officials might receive the results of a track-two process is misplaced and has the effect of limiting what track two should try to achieve.

Another critical issue is funding. Though the sums involved are small, support for airfares and other meeting costs is required. Traditionally, track two is funded by major foundations and by some governments, such as the Scandinavians and the Americans. This sometimes leads to concerns of undue influence.

At the end of the day, the integrity of the third party depends on not accepting support if the funder demands conditions, and on being scrupulously open and honest about who is funding the exercise.

Support can only be accepted if the process is organised in ways which meet with the approval of the regional participants. Third parties acting as agents of others quickly gain a reputation for untrustworthiness and are unable to continue. • 

The writer, an associate professor in the Graduate School of Public and International Affairs at the University of Ottawa, is facilitating a South Asian track two process known as the Ottawa Dialogue.

Defending democracy

By: Malik Muhammad Ashraf | February 02, 2013By: Malik Muhammad Ashraf | February 02, 2013 . 1

There’s many a slip twixt the cup and the lip. This idiom is a befitting description of our political culture, which has mostly remained embedded in uncertainties.
Even after more than six decades of our existence as an independent state, unfortunately, we are still groping in the dark to find the avenue that could lead us to our cherished destiny of a democratic polity, thanks to dictators, time-serving politicians and forces inimical to democracy, who have abiding vested interests in the perpetuation of a culture of confusion, not allowing democratic entities to gain ascendancy. So whenever democratic norms seem to take root in Pakistan, these forces activate themselves and conspire to derail democracy and drag the country back into a dark alley.
Now when everything seems to be moving towards a smooth power transition, the rumours about postponement of elections and establishment of a caretaker set up for a longer period are getting louder. Recently, Senator Raza Rabbani, while speaking to the media outside Parliament, said that a plot was being hatched to derail democracy and set up an unconstitutional caretaker government for the next three years. The opposition parties too have expressed their fears about it.
These rumours have been going on ever since Dr Tahirul Qadri landed in Pakistan after an absence of five years. His long march, his ever-vacillating stance on the country’s political future, the threatening tone and insistence on reforms before the 2013 elections are the usual ploys employed by anti-democratic forces to deny the people their right to exercise their will in choosing their representatives.
Initially, he wanted the implementation of constitutional provisions in determining the eligibility of candidates. But later demanded the reconstitution of the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP), which is an unconstitutional desire.
Against this backdrop, there are signals emanating from different quarters suggesting that well orchestrated moves are in the offing to disrupt the democratic process. These tactics are designed to precipitate confusion and have the elections postponed, paving the way for the establishment of an unconstitutional setup in the country.
Moreover, the rightist and religious elements have always played the role of a spoiler by supporting unconstitutional arrangements and dictatorial regimes. They have been creating doubts about the viability of democracy in Pakistan, ever since the 2008 elections and have run a sustained media campaign to discredit the PPP-led government. However, their sinister designs have been thwarted by the political will and sagacity of the ruling party, which must be given the credit for fighting an unrelenting war against anti-democracy forces.
It is also gratifying know that these forces are facing tough resistance from democratic entities. The government and the opposition parties, who have differed on everything under the skies after the end of their short-lived bonhomie, have shown solidarity on defending democracy and holding the election on time, according to constitutional requirements.
Equally reassuring is the support for the continuation of democratic process from the Supreme Court. Chief Justice Iftikhar Mohammad Chaudhry, while hearing a contempt case against the Nab Chairman, maintained that the judiciary would resist any endeavour to scuttle the democratic process. The court’s warning has at least permanently closed one avenue for the forces hostile to democratic order, who try to legitimise their unconstitutional acts.
There is no doubt that the country badly needs political reforms and change in the way we elect our representatives. But that change must come through a democratic and evolutionary process, rather than unconstitutional means. Our salvation, peace, progress and tranquillity lie in our unflinching commitment to democracy; the course cherished and envisioned by Quaid-i-Azam Mohammad Ali Jinnah.
    The writer is a freelance columnist.
       Email: ashpak10@gmail.com

Teaching Faculty of Govt. Sadiq Egerton College Bahawalpur March 2011

Photos 125 years celebrations at Sadiq Egerton College Bahawalpur

Photos 125 years celebrations at Sadiq Egerton College Bahawalpur

 

Photos 125 years celebrations at Sadiq Egerton College Bahawalpur

Photos 125 years celebrations at Sadiq Egerton College Bahawalpur

 

As a matter of fact

Author: By M J Akbar

June 24, 2012 on 9:41 AM

The rich now want money from the poor

Facts come in every shape, size, variety. Their survival is determined not by value but by how inexplicable they are. The human being has 23,000 genes, only “half as many as a tomato”, I am told. But humbling as this formative fact of life might be, it does not quite catch the imagination as much as the perplexity called death, particularly when death escapes the boundaries of reason: A plague decimates a continent, war murders a generation, or an evil maniac orders a genocide.

Statistics distil facts to stark simplicity. Between September 1939 and August 1945, the period of the Second World War, 27,000 people were killed each day. (This figure does not include war-related casualties like the three million-odd Bengalis who died of a famine that was a direct consequence of war policy.) There is always enough to be learnt from war, its machines and its machinations. Guess who is the largest buyer of oil in the world? If you thought it was a country, wrong. The Pentagon.

America’s military consumes more oil each year than the whole of Africa. And yet, when you think about it, is this very startling? The armies of the British Empire surely drank up more oil than all the colonies they ruled. None of us were there to count, and contemporary historians had more delicious details to record, but you can safely bet that Rome alone had more chariots than the rest of the Roman Empire.

It has always been thus. To the victor goes not only the spoils of war but also the far more substantial rewards of its blanket peace: A Pax Romana then, a Pax Americana now. So what’s the story? The privileges of power have not changed, but the world has.

If the ascent of America begins with victory in the First World War; its supremacy after the Second; and domination after the Third (also known as the Cold) War, then many of today’s contradictions also lie in the liberal ideas that America encouraged as a template for the future it hoped to control. America sought the rights of power without the problems or obvious injustice of foreign rule. It tried to fashion, particularly after 1992, what might be called the Good Empire as distinct from the Evil Empire (Ronald Reagan’s description of the Soviet Union). The thesis, broadly, was this: All nations would be equal; post-colonial nations would be formed on the basis of public will, with claims being resolved by plebiscite; the world as well as its parts would be governed by the broad principles of democracy.

Confusion is the bridesmaid of change, so after the applause died down there was achievement, failure and bewilderment in roughly equal measure. The fault line of democracy is that while it offers equal rights in theory, it does not guarantee equality in practice. Every vote has the same weight, but every voter does not possess equal weightage, whether in a municipality or the United Nations. Wealth feeds power and power reinforces wealth, both at the macro and micro levels.

In countries like India, the co-existence of democracy with degrading poverty cannot be easily justified, by either idealism or intellect. But poverty is both absolute and comparative. America’s poor, famously, are better off than the middle class in most of the world. However, they do not compare themselves to sub-Saharan Africa, thank God for their good fortune, and live happily ever after. They get angry with their president when their comfort zone is threatened. No child suffers the anguish of malnutrition in Greece, and yet Greek rage at loss of standards of living has boiled over into a volatile crisis. The battles being fought across the world are over inequity, a perception of injustice. Democracy does not, unlike socialism, offer economic equality, which is impossible; but its spirit does insist on economic equity. When disparity between the top 5 per cent and bottom 50 per cent becomes obscene, the deprived do not remain silent forever.

The establishment’s traditional response has been to blame the victim. But democracy permits a victim to scream, and the Greeks are doing so pretty loudly. Europe and America are rushing to its help, as they should if they want to. It does seem odd, though, that India, where 50 times the population of Greece lives below the poverty line, should gift $10 billion to help resolve a problem it did not cause. Till two decades ago, rich nations still felt some mild moral obligation to reduce poverty through aid. They now expect aid from the poor.

Miraculously, they get it. Delhi cannot find Rs 20,000 crore for Bengal, but hands over Rs 56,000 crore for Greece. Bengal’s poor can shout as much as the Greeks. Will India ever get this money back? Fact from history: Greece is still waiting for Germany to pay what it claimed as reparations after the Second World War.



The columnist is editor of The Sunday Guardian, published from Delhi, India on Sunday, published from London and Editorial Director, India Today and Headlines Today.

Budget highlights 2012-13

Following are the highlights of the Budget Speech for the financial year 2012-13 of Federal Finance Minister Dr Abdul Hafeez Shaikh in the National Assembly here on Friday:

* Total budget volume Rs2,960 billion.

* Gross Revenue Receipts (estimated) for Year 2012-13 Rs3,234 billion.

* FBR sets Rs2,381 billion tax collection target.

* Rs1,459 billion to be transferred to provinces under NFC Award.

* Budget deficit likely to remain at Rs1,185 billion.

* Provincial Surplus estimated at Rs80 billion.

* Rs70 billion to be allocated for BISP.

* Rs10 billion to be allocated for Export Development Fund.

* 10% additional discount at Utility Stores on different commodities for BISP cardholders.

* Govt to set up 2,000 new Utility Stores, 35,000 families to get relief.

* 100,000 youth to get internships, technical training.

Bachelor, master degree holders to get 40,000 internships each in public and private sector.

* 20,000 graduates to be imparted skilled training to fulfil domestic and foreign demand.

* Govt to pay tuition fee of PhD and master students belonging to Balochistan, Fata, Gilgit-Baltistan.

* 20% ad hoc relief in pay and pension of Federal Government Employees.

* Income Tax Exemption Limit enhanced upto Rs400,000.

* Tax on Business Turnover reduced from 1% to 0.5%.

* Withholding tax ceiling for cash withdrawal from banks enhanced from Rs25,000 to Rs50,000.

* Federal Excise Duty on 10 items abolished.

* Federal Excise Duty on cement reduced from Rs750 to 500 per metric tonne.

* 18 raw materials, 9 components being used for text books, stationary exempted from Customs Duty.

* Customs duty reduced from 10% to 5% on 88 raw materials of Pharmaceutical Industry.

* Growth rate remains at 3.7 % as compared to 3.4 % during last two years.

* Pakistan repay $1.2 billion of loans to IMF.

* Sales Tax rate reduced from 17% to 16%.

* Current expenditure registers 10% decrease.

* Total volume of grants reaches 70% of Divisible Pool.

* Parliament passes 24 laws to empower women during last four years.

* Inflation reduced to 11%, next year it will be cut down to single digit.

* Tax Revenue registers 46% increase, tax collection increases from Rs.1327 billion to Rs.1950 billion.

* Subsidy of Rs50 billion given on fertilizer.

* Industrial growth rate projected to 3.4% this year against 3.1% last year.

* Subsidies of Rs1,250 billion given on electricity sector during last five years.

* Govt injected 3500MW of electricity to National Grid.

* Pakistan to get 2 billion cubic feet of gas from Pak-Iran gas pipeline, Turkmenistan-Afghanistan-Pakistan India gas pipeline.

* 500 million cubic feet of LNG will be made available for consumers.

* Govt gave relief of Rs70 billion on petroleum products.

* National Economic Council approved Annual Development Plan of Rs873 billion.

* Federal Government share in Annual Development Plan is Rs300 billion.

* 200 projects completed under Public Sector Development Programme (PSDP) at a cost of Rs300 billion.

* Govt allocates Rs360 billion under PSDP for 96 ongoing projects.

* Rs69 billion earmarked for Electricity sector, Wapda, electric companies will be given Rs115 billion.

* Rs44 billion for Social Sector.

* Fata, Gilgit-Baltistan, AJK to get Rs37 billion.

* Rs16 billion allocated for Higher Education.

* Rs84 billion allocated for Transport and Communication (Rs51 billion for NHA, Rs23 billion for Railways).

* Balochistan share increases upto 9.09% in Divisible Pool.

* Govt accepted Rs120 billion as royalty on gas sale from 1954 to 1991 for Balochistan.

* Federal Government to finance 11,500 jobs for Baloch youth.

* Block Development Allocation enhanced up to Rs16 billion for Gilgit-Baltistan.

* Rs10 billion allocated for mega project in Gilgit-Baltistan.

* Rs17 billion allocated in PSDP for Fata.

* Rs12 billion for development projects, Rs16.5 billion allocated for current expenditure for Azad Kashmir besides a loan of Rs8.5 billion.

* Remittances by overseas Pakistan touch $13 billion mark during last two years.

* Exports register 28% increase, volume touches $25 billion mark.

Turn Adversaries into Allies

Tip of the day
Anyone who has faced rivals at work — bosses who take all the credit, team members who undermine things — knows how difficult it is to ignore them. Instead, turn your adversaries into collaborators by following these three steps: Redirect. Try to channel your rival's negative emotions away from you by bringing up something you have in common, or talking about the source of the tension in a favorable light. Reciprocate. Give up something of value to your rival — help complete a project or divulge important information — so you are poised to ask for something in return. Reason. Explain that not working together cooperatively could mean lost opportunities. Most people are highly motivated to avoid a loss.

To Save Pakistan, Author Says U.S. Needs Plan for Afghanistan

By Michael Coleman
Uploaded on April 30, 2012

News articles and media commentators frequently describe Pakistan as a dangerous place — the world's most dangerous, according to many observers — but few, if any, can match the vivid, sometimes frightening reporting of celebrated journalist Ahmed Rashid.
Rashid, once called Pakistan's "best and bravest reporter" by the late author Christopher Hitchens, exploded into the international consciousness in 2001 with "Taliban," a New York Times number-one bestseller that was translated into more than 20 languages. The book helped readers better understand the brutal regime that hijacked Afghanistan and incubated the terrorist group behind the 9/11 attacks. He earned widespread acclaim for his 2008 follow-up, "Descent into Chaos: The United States and the Failure of Nation Building in Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Central Asia."

Photo: Ahmed Rashid

Now, Rashid, based in Lahore, is back with "Pakistan on the Brink: The Future of America, Pakistan, and Afghanistan." The book examines U.S. policy toward Pakistan and Afghanistan and how the U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan will affect international terrorism and a region vital to world security. While the subject matter is grim, Rashid offers clear-eyed suggestions for a peaceful path forward, including the provocative notion that the United States and Pakistan should negotiate a political compromise with the Taliban.
In a wide-ranging interview with The Washington Diplomat, Rashid said he wrote his book "with the very acute realization that Pakistan was literally going down the tubes."
In fact, just days after the interview, Taliban fighters stormed a prison in northwestern Pakistan, freeing nearly 400 inmates in what is being called the biggest jailbreak in the country's history. At the same time in Afghanistan, officials in that country were blaming the Haqqani network of the Taliban, based in Pakistan, for a coordinated series of attacks that paralyzed the capital of Kabul in mid-April.
As for U.S.-Pakistani relations, they seem to plunge to ever-lower depths as each new crisis explodes. Bilateral ties — already strained in the wake of the U.S. raid that killed Osama bin Laden at a secret compound about an hour north of Islamabad — ruptured following a NATO air attack in November that mistakenly killed 24 Pakistani soldiers. As a result, the Pakistani Parliament underwent a complete review of its relationship with the United States, demanding an immediate end to drone strikes and an unconditional apology for the strike on Pakistani soldiers.
There was speculation that with the review finished, Pakistan might reopen a critical NATO supply route to Afghanistan. "We are a responsible nation," Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gilani told Parliament, though he wouldn't confirm if the route would reopen. "We know our obligations as well as the importance of the United States."
Yet Rashid argues that Pakistani leaders have long fostered a narrative that blames everyone — and especially America — for the South Asian nation's precarious state, when the overwhelming evidence is that many of its troubles are homegrown. Rashid's newest book begins in 1989, at the twilight of the Cold War.
"When the Cold War ended, Pakistan did not change at all," Rashid said. "It remained heavily dependent on the United States, the elite refused to pay taxes, and we pursued a foreign policy that was expansionist and aggressive."
Rashid argues that while Pakistan made terrible domestic political decisions, the United States enabled the country's government by pouring aid into a Pakistani military that made no effort to account for its spending. The situation dramatically worsened after al-Qaeda terrorists attacked the World Trade Center and Pentagon, Rashid said. In the decade since 9/11, the U.S. government has sent $20 billion to Pakistan and has little to show for it.
"That's a hell of a lot of money," Rashid said. "Eighty percent of that money has gone to the military, and there has been no accounting of that money in the civil sector. How do they account for it?"
Rashid says the gravy train started with former President George W. Bush and former Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf, who made backroom deals that allowed CIA agents and U.S. Special Forces to infiltrate the country in exchange for truckloads of American cash.
"People essentially said, 'Give us something that is visible and tangible,'" Rashid charged. "They said, 'Don't give us this democracy support bullshit.'"
However, rank-and-file Pakistanis, who are among the world's poorest people, resented the aid, which went almost exclusively to the all-powerful military.
"There was deep suspicion about America's intentions," Rashid said, adding that the two countries should have been more transparent. "I think if [Pakistan] had been more responsive earlier to this whole notion of civilian aid and a strategic dialogue with the U.S., we could have worked out something that would be more balanced."
Rashid says the Obama administration has largely continued these secretive policies, as evidenced by the record number of surreptitious drone strikes in the country.
"These secret deals deeply annoyed the people of Pakistan and that's one of the reasons for this anti-Americanism," he said. "There is a horrendous spate of anti-Americanism that's going on, which is extremely dangerous because along with that comes anti-democracy, extremism and outright religious conservatism."
Rashid also argues that the glut of American money has made the deadly, decade-long U.S. exercise in Afghanistan — inextricably linked to neighboring Pakistan — vastly more expensive and ineffective than it needed to be. During the initial U.S. invasion in 2001, Rashid and other experts in the region met with top officials at the White House and suggested a modest plan to rebuild the country after the toppling of the Taliban.
Over the past 11 years, the United States has sunk more than $500 billion into the war in Afghanistan. Rashid and the other experts argued that stabilizing the country could have been done for a fraction of that amount.
"We estimated if you gave the Afghan government $5 billion per year just for development for 10 years, that was all the Afghans could absorb," he said. "It would have sufficiently rebuilt the economy to where it was in 1978 before the Soviets came in.
"I would claim right now that unfortunately the West has not even been able to do that despite spending billions on so-called development," Rashid continued. "Apart from some areas where there have been huge contributions, particularly education and health care, as far as developing an indigenous economy, agriculture, infrastructure, there hasn't been much done at all. It's difficult to see how it has come up to the level even of what it was in 1978."
Although President Obama pledged and delivered more resources toward the fight in Afghanistan, he's largely pursued a military-centric approach in both Afghanistan and neighboring Pakistan, especially given the successes of drone strikes and special ops raids that have decapitated the bulk of al-Qaeda's leadership.
The hallmark achievement of this counterterrorism strategy was the killing of Osama bin Laden a year ago during a covert U.S. raid in the midsize town of Abbottabad, where the terrorist mastermind had essentially been hiding in plain sight of Pakistani military forces.
While celebrated in the United States, bin Laden's death marked a pivotal turning point in U.S.-Pakistani relations, especially after the circumstances of the midnight raid came to light, Rashid told The Diplomat.
"Initially, people welcomed his death," the author said. "But then what happened is the Pakistani press lambasted the military and raised two issues that remain unresolved.
"Were they hiding Osama? And if they weren't hiding him, they were bloody incompetent," Rashid said. "That caused immense embarrassment and questioning inside the military. Then the military came back and [said] these are not the questions. They said the real question is, 'Is America breaking our sovereignty by intruding into Pakistan, etc.' That then became the new mantra."
Rashid explains in his book, and in his Diplomat interview, that he's not buying the military's attempt to change the subject.
"The military tried to change the narrative," he said. "We can get to the sovereignty question later, but first they need to answer these questions. Not only did nobody answer them, but there was no accountability. Nobody was sacked or fired and nobody was held responsible."
Why not?
"There was acute embarrassment, but also in the lower ranks of officers there was acute anti-Americanism," he replied. "I think the high command was faced with a barrage of criticism from the mid-level officers who wanted the army to denounce the Americans."
So what can the United States do to try to lift the abysmal state of relations with a hostile, nuclear-armed, Muslim nation?
The most important thing it can do, according to Rashid, is to get out of Afghanistan.
"I do think a withdrawal will be hugely beneficial to Pakistan," he argues. "We have our own Taliban now who are very dangerous. If there could be a political settlement between [Afghan President Hamid] Karzai and the Taliban and the Americans that allows the Americans to withdraw in a peaceful situation, I think it would have a huge effect on de-fanging and de-legitimizing the Taliban.
"One of their claims of a legitimate jihad is that they are fighting with their Afghan brothers against the American occupation," he added. "That is a legitimate jihad, but if that reason was to disappear tomorrow, or in 2014 [the planned U.S. withdrawal date], so does one of their main planks. That would have a huge impact."
Rashid contends that the U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan will also remove a convenient excuse for Pakistani leaders trying to explain the sorry state of affairs in their country.
"We would no longer have this excuse that everything is going wrong because of the Americans or the American presence in Afghanistan," he said. "We would be forced to look at ourselves and sort out our own problems, rather than blaming others for them.
"Pakistan would be forced into a kind of self-sufficiency."
But Rashid does not advocate a hasty withdrawal, especially in the absence of a political agreement in Afghanistan, where he says the Taliban must be dealt with somehow before U.S. troops head for the exits.
"There has to be a negotiated political settlement with the Taliban," Rashid said. "The Americans cannot leave Afghanistan with that country in a state of civil war as it is today. The Americans can only leave that country with a relative reduction of violence.
"If you leave that country in a state of civil war, the Afghan army isn't going to stand up to the pressure of the Taliban," he warned. "I think in a year or two, the government would collapse and there would be a multidimensional civil war. It would spread its tentacles into all the neighboring states and even allow al-Qaeda to come back."
Rashid suggested a two-pronged approach. The first phase would be a military ceasefire between the United States and the Taliban after extended exercises in "confidence and trust building." The second part would be a power-sharing agreement between the Afghan government and the Taliban, with representation from all sectors of Afghan society — including women.
"The Taliban has to meet with Afghan women and be exposed to Afghan women who have in the last 10 years gotten educated, gotten jobs and are working," he said. "This is a generation of women the Taliban have never even met with. They can't even conceive of them."
He also suggested that the primitive religious group be given modern offices.
"If we can open an office for the Taliban [in Afghanistan] and have negotiations, the more you can expose the Taliban to modern Afghan society — urbanized Afghans — the more you'll be forcing the Taliban to moderate their positions."
Of course, that's assuming the Taliban is even willing to enter into peace talks, a concept that's been tentatively in the works for years, only to be derailed by incidents such as the alleged massacre of 17 Afghan civilians at the hands of a U.S. soldier, as well as the Taliban assassination of Burhanuddin Rabbani, a top Karzai emissary in the proposed negotiations.
Despite the difficulties, Rashid says the alternative is worse. "The grimmest outcome would result from a botched, overly hasty Western withdrawal, the absence of a political settlement with the Taliban, a continuing civil war in Afghanistan, the Pakistani leaders' continuing resistance to internal reform, the army's refusal to seek a compromise on Afghanistan with the United States and Afghans, and a consequent meltdown of the Pakistani state," he warns in "Pakistan on the Brink."
To that end, if the region implodes, Rashid says there would be plenty of blame to go around. "Obama and his senior officials share a major part of the blame because their failure to act as a team has resulted in contradictory policies, intense political infighting, and uncertainty about U.S. aims and objectives in the region," he wrote.
At the same time, Rashid blasts the Pakistani military for its obsession with Indian hegemony, the Kashmiri cause, protecting its nuclear program, and ensuring a pro-Pakistani government in Kabul — despite U.S. pressure and money.
"Its political and military leadership has shown neither the courage nor the will nor the intelligence to carry out major reforms in the country's foreign and economic policies," he charges. "The military has allowed the Afghan Taliban factions and their leaders safe sanctuary and support ever since 2001 — something the Americans knew well but failed to raise effectively. Social services are near collapse, law enforcement is abysmal, economic hardship is widespread, natural disasters occur with little or no government assistance, and the majority of the population has no security."
This kind of blunt talk is unquestionably dangerous in Pakistan, where shadowy violence abounds — as does shadowy Machiavellian politics. (Islamabad's former ambassador in Washington, Husain Haqqani, became ensnared in a bizarre controversy last year revolving a memo purportedly orchestrated by the civilian government asking the U.S. for help reining in the military.)
The Committee to Protect Journalists declared Pakistan the most dangerous country in the world for reporters in 2011, with seven journalists dying in the tumultuous nation that year. Rashid said he's well aware of the perils of his work.
"I'm very outspoken, but one tends to play a cat-and-mouse game with the extremists and the terrorist agencies," he said. "It's become very hard to become a journalist in Pakistan. The threats and harassment journalists face are very real. I feel them all the time.
"But this is very important and I don't think Pakistan can be ignored."
Rashid also encourages American policymakers to re-evaluate their attitudes toward Pakistan, especially those who might want to dismiss the nation as a lost cause.
"The tendency of some in Congress to say 'let them go hang' doesn't make sense," he told us. "It's a geostrategic linchpin in South Asia and West Asia, and its location on the Gulf makes it extremely important for the U.S. oil supply and global stability.
"It also happens to house the full range of Islamic extremists — local, Arab, Central Asian, the Chechens."
So what to do about those terrorists, especially the radical Taliban? Rashid proposes the radical notion of rehabilitating them, when possible, rather than killing them.
"There has to be a change in foreign policy," he said. "We have to wake up to the new reality that we have to de-fang these militants, not through military action necessarily but through some kind of reconciliation program."
He pointed to a program in Saudi Arabia in which young al-Qaeda recruits were captured and initially imprisoned, then gradually re-indoctrinated through the intervention of moderate mullahs.
"They didn't kill them, but put them into jails which became residential accommodations and they kept them there for many years and had them indoctrinated by mullahs, got them degrees and skills, got them married, and gave them psychological treatment.
"It's been a very successful program and we could probably get funding for something like that," he said. "We need to do that on a much larger scale in Pakistan, and I think if we did that there would be a lot of Western support.
"In the 21st century, we cannot maintain extremists on our soil as an arm of foreign policy," he added. "That era has gone. It was possible during the Cold War because the fundamentalists were anti-Soviet and the Americans also funded extremists — Osama bin Laden and all kinds of groups. After 9/11, that era has ended."

Recycled Thought: From Procedural to Substantive Democracy

Recycled Thought: From Procedural to Substantive Democracy: One of the fundamental reasons why some of us prefer to fight for greater democracy in this country is because it remains the only attainabl...