Having an Opinion in the Era of Intolerance By Munir Ahmed: New Age Islam's Selection, 21 June 2017
New
Age Islam Edit Bureau
21 June 2017
• Having an Opinion in the Era of Intolerance
By Munir Ahmed
• Zero Tolerance and Double Standards
By Muhammad Hamid Zaman
• Sindh: Tracing Ghost Development
By Mushtaq Rajpar
• Qatar Crisis
By Raashid Wali Janjua
• What Do We Want In Afghanistan? — I
By By Marvi Sirmed
• Russia Calling
By Murtaza Shibli
• Trapped In Poverty
By Mashaal Gauhar
• Panama Leaks, Confusion Galore
By Mohammad Jamil
• A Pyrrhic Victory For Theresa May
By Shahid M Amin
Compiled By New Age Islam Edit Bureau
----
Having an Opinion in the Era of Intolerance
By Munir Ahmed
20-Jun-17
Response to my opinion piece published last Tuesday had been quite ‘overwhelming’. Some offered threats of dire consequences for ‘challenging the system’, some used extremely abusive language and some asked me what price I was sold off. Certainly, there were some thumbs up too. I am thankful to all my readers for their extreme ‘feedback’ though, as usual, mostly it was disturbing, annoying and frustrating. Having been in the profession for more than two decades, I believe it is part and parcel of the routine. Your harsh feedback once again revealed to me the level of intolerance the Pakistanis have towards difference of opinion.
When we, the media people, stress upon the freedom of expression for ourselves, we shall also give our audience right to express their emotions, feelings, and peace of mind. We do give this right to all our readers, but what should be the limit? The audience has the right to express their feelings and emotions. Very clearly, they don’t have the right to offer threats and use abusive language, and have no right to command the opinion of any journalist, or ask any writer to stop writing ‘against the system and state institutions’.
I am very clear that all the state institutions and the government departments that are funded by the public money are subject to the feedback and criticism. Even judiciary and army are no exception. These two institutions are very sacred to us but no angels. These are run by the human beings who could be as good or bad as anyone could be. They could be as partial and siding and favouring to anyone as anyone of us could be. So, no one needs to be over-hyper, frenzied and weird.
I am copying here the most ‘mild’ email as it is and with all the typos for your consumption. “Hi, I have read your article regarding JIT. I am very much disappointed by your ill thoughts about the justice system of Pakistan. Theoretical justice system in the country is based on Islamic values and principles. Practically, this has been hijacked by the corrupt mafia. If you think your masters are clean, they should stop interfering in the assessment work of judicial representative.
Other emails were precise and obvious in their meaning, and clearly understood as threats. This needed Editor’s opinion who said, “It’s a comment bordering on threat. Anyway, ignore, this is what happens when you speak up.”
Most emails and tweets do not carry identifiable IDs. Some are anonymous and having names such as Mr Khan, AD Chaudhary, Abdullah and ‘Your Well-wisher’. We dare to get published our opinion with our original names and photographs. Everything that we write and speak goes publicly for the public opinion. Whatever it could be? The threatening elements are so ‘brave’, they have ambiguous email and Twitter IDs. Even, they don’t have the courage to mention their names in the emails they send to threat someone.
All state institutions and government departments that are funded by public money are subject to feedback and criticism
This is really strange behaviour and attitude of the believers of the most tolerant person in the history of mankind — Hazrat Muhammad (PBUH). He never snubbed or punished the woman who used to throw filth on him. We cannot forget his visit to Taif Valley, Ghazwa-e-Uhad, and the abusive language used against him, but he always tolerated the extreme behaviours.
We should adopt the legal course for remedies, and raise our deep concerns through peaceful protests. We shall have many other ways to raise our voice without burning the properties of individuals and the ones owned by the state. We really don’t need to kill anyone in the name blasphemy or conflict of opinion. Islam does not condone killing in the name of religion. It even disallows threatening someone when you have difference of opinion.
We are the followers of Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) who is known for utmost tolerance, but unfortunately we have zero tolerance for the ideas and opinions that are not similar to ours. We have turned so rigid in our opinion and faiths that we cannot tolerate difference of views, opinions and different ideas. The Prophet (PBUH) has clearly shown the pathways to deal with such situations and incidents. All of them are non-threatening and non-violent. The justice shall be done through logical judicial process with meaningful and peaceful procedures. I strongly believe that tolerance and peaceful existence is the core essence of the holy month of Ramzan. May we become a society of diverse opinions, and may the justice procedures be meaningful enough to do justice.
Source: dailytimes.com.pk/opinion/20-Jun-17/having-an-opinion-in-the-era-of-intolerance
----
Zero Tolerance and Double Standards
By Muhammad Hamid Zaman
June 20, 2017
A few weeks ago when a lawmaker of the ruling party threatened the judges and their families, there was unanimous outrage. The disciplinary machinery of the ruling party came into action, and there was broad agreement that a line had been crossed. A respectable nation cannot allow its lawmakers to threaten judges or their families. The outrage was justified, as we expect better from our legislators.
Another line was crossed, last week, when a serving minister and a very senior leader of the ruling party showed the world what he thinks of his women colleagues in parliament. His inner vile misogynistic core was there for everyone to see. Like an annual ritual, he once used disgusting and inappropriate language to disparage his female colleagues. Somehow he and his cronies thought that was funny. Unfortunately, this time no disciplinary committee took up action, no condemnation from the top leaders came through and nothing happened. No one from the ruling party distanced himself or herself from the minister, and it was business as usual for everyone. The fact that he did a similar thing on the floor of parliament last year, and issued a weak, insincere apology makes his behaviour even more problematic. It is easy to take cheap shots at women in our society, I wonder if the minister would ever consider doing the same for a member of the armed forces or the clergy?
Women Forge Alliance For Safe Workplaces
Our selective outrage and inconsistent morality is just as troubling as the behaviour of the minister. Just as we all are ready to say that those who threaten others have no place in our legislative bodies, we should also be ready to say that misogynists must go! It is not about partisan politics or disagreement with a policy, it is about human decency and respect. By staying quiet, those around him, including those who wear the mantle of equality and development, depicted their own weak moral fibre and hypocritical core.
I feel for the women who have to work in the ministries of water and power, and defence, and how it must affect them. We want our workplaces to be inclusive, welcoming and respectful, not led by men who revel in cheap jokes at the expense of women.
Responding to this incident, some called the weak outrage on social media a Western or a liberal value, or simply said that this is normal in Pakistan and happens all the time. Others, I am sure will ask, what was the big deal about it. I wonder since when did the East or the West started having a monopoly on human decency and respect? In the past, in many parts of the world, including in our own, young girls have been killed or buried alive, a practice that has been considered normal at that time and place. Just because something is normal does not make it right.
We have a long way to go before we can stand on the world stage and be proud of the status of women in our society. Maternal health, women’s rights or access to education for girls put us at the bottom of the global pack. The statistics are not just bad, they are abysmal. But it doesn’t take a development expert to realise that for as long as deep misogyny and disrespect of women remain a central component of our leaders’ actions, our status will fail to change. For as long as those who find taking cheap shots at their female colleagues acceptable (or even funny) remain amongst the policymakers, our ability to create a safe and equitable world for all our citizens will remain a distant and an impossible dream. Human dignity and decency is neither a partisan issue, nor should it be a polarising one. Our economic development will count for little if it is detached from our basic human decency.
Source: tribune.com.pk/story/1439639/zero-tolerance-double-standards/
----
Sindh: Tracing Ghost Development
By Mushtaq Rajpar
June 17, 2017
It is important to ask what the Sindh government is trying to achieve with the development budget of Rs274 billion. Where is the money going? Why does one not see an impact of this huge development spending? At a time when Punjab and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa are borrowing money from ADB and the World Bank to finance their much-needed development projects, the PPP is wasting money on construction of housing for parliamentarians, when most of them already own big houses in the city.
The Sindh budget seems to have one strategic plan: to fuel the construction industry – as if the folks in government own steel and cement industries. For example, Rs9 billion has been allocated for construction of government offices in the province.
Take the example of the education crisis in the province, which refuses to go away. The budgetary allocations do not match the education goals. Universal education in Sindh is a victim of discriminatory allocation. In the outgoing fiscal year, the Sindh government allocated Rs12.1 billion for college education but then cut it down to Rs6.3 billion; this year again Rs12.1 billion has been allocated. Similarly, university grants were allocated Rs2.3 billion but in the revised budget reduced to less than one billion. This year again Rs2.7 billion has been given to grants, but at the end of the fiscal year one is not sure how much will be given to these universities.
Contrary to the claims in the budget speech of Sindh CM Murad Ali Shah that Rs202 billion has been allocated for education, the fact is that the Annual Development Plan mentions allocations for projects of Rs21 billion. The rest will be non-development spending. Sindh spends over Rs175 billion on teacher salaries; a raise of 10-15 percent adds to the non-development expenditure of Rs15 billion to Rs20 billion. The provincial government needs Rs100 billion to complete ongoing education programmes. If one goes by the actual expenditure of the current fiscal year, which stood at Rs6.3 billion, it would take ages to finish these projects. In the current budget Rs3 billion has been allocated for new schemes and Rs17 billion for old/ongoing schemes. There is no legal bar on cutting down the education development budget in the revised budget. No one will remember if 50 percent of the budget was cut down, using shortfall in federal transfer or any other excuse.
In yet another unwise waste of resources, the Sindh government plans to give a reward of Rs100,00 to every student who achieves A-1 grade in board exams. Exams in Sindh have been marred with massive cheating. Instead of controlling that, and expanding the Sindh Education Endowment Fund, the government is just throwing away money. It is important to help needy students and endowment is the best way to fund their higher education. Punjab has increased the fund over the years and is targeting to give 100,000 scholarships. The Sindh government willingly or unintentionally does not share the number of beneficiaries of this fund.
The problem with the PPP, despite good intentions, is that it lacks a core team responsible for planning, execution and follow-up of top priority projects. The sheer lack of ownership is what defines their failure. The occasional intervention by Bilawal Bhutto Zardari and Aseefa cannot substitute an organised team looking after the progress of the projects. The best visionary development expert that the Sindh government once had, Dr Kaiser Bangali, was not just removed but his development direction and plans were abandoned as well. Since then, the party does not have an integrated development plan.
One example of this ill planning is that the Sindh government has a very large number of development schemes that are unfinished. Instead of completing them, the government has announced another 816 new projects.
Most surveys and reports have identified two key problems that Sindh’s education sector faces. One is the challenge of increasing the rate of literacy and the second is improving the quality of teaching and teachers. The budgetary allocation for both these items is lowest in the overall education budget. The lack of ownership and commitment in Sindh’s governance can be seen by the fact that in 2010 the government planned to reopen 400 girls schools in the rural areas of Sindh. The total cost for that was only Rs300 million, but by 2016 they had allocated and spent only Rs175 million. How does one explain this inefficiency? Is it because people in the education department were not aware of where these schools were located? Why would doing so take seven years and why is it still lingering on? it seems they start projects and give up.
Take another example. The government started a wonderful project of introducing computer education in public-sector schools back in 2007-08, with estimated cost of half a billion rupees. After 11 years, they could spend only Rs147 million. In this age of the internet, how can we afford to keep public school students without knowledge and use of IT? The USAID-funded schools in Sindh are fully equipped with IT education. USAID took on board Intel-Pakistan and Rotary Pakistan to install and manage the programme. The Intel CEO made an open offer of partnership, but did the Sindh government avail it?
There are only a few shining initiatives to the Sindh government’s credit, which look like some islands of progress in the province. The PPP has extended generous and substantial support to people who are doing solid work and are delivering. This would include grants of billions of rupees to SIUT in Karachi and Sukkur, and most recently a Rs700 million grant to the Gambat Institute of Medical Sciences in the Khairpur district.
Another grant has been given to the state-of-the-art Institute of Business Administration (IBA-Sukkur), where once former US ambassador in Pakistan Richard Olson remarked ‘the infrastructure and facilities at this institute are far better than the college I went to in the US’. It is by the support of the Sindh government that 70 percent students at this institute (which has been upgraded to a university) study on scholarships (including some by USAID), and there is a secure lodging facility for female students.
Some very positive things in the Sindh budget are in the education sector, for example establishing cadet colleges in areas which were ignored in the past, which include a community college in Sehwan, cadet colleges in Mithi, Thar, Jacobabad, Pano Aqil, Karampur, Badin, and including a junior section to Cadet College Larkana with provision of solar energy. Also, the establishment of a women’s university in Sukkur and an IT university in Khairpur are projects which will have far-reaching impact on society in areas that are often marred with tribal feuds and violence against women.
The budgetary allocation trend shows that the focus of the PPP government has been on higher education, but it has not been serious about achieving universal education in the province. Not many in the government even aspire to this. Rural backwardness and poverty in the province will not end without giving boys and girls access to free and quality education.
Source: thenews.com.pk/print/211082-Sindh-tracing-ghost-development
----
Qatar Crisis
By Raashid Wali Janjua
20-Jun-17
If we lose a dollar they will lose a dollar, intoned superciliously the Qatar finance minister after a slew of sanctions imposed by the fellow Gulf brethren. The upbeat mien of the Qatari minister Ahmed bin Jassim while saying that the food stocks in Qatar would last a year without any trouble however betrayed a nervousness that was so natural for a country so heavily integrated with its Arab cousins both financially and logistically. With a population of just 2.7 million and 80 percent dependency on expatriates, Qatar is compelled to foster cordial relations between its GCC as well as non GCC allies.
Saudi Arabia, UAE, Bahrain, Egypt, and Yemen have cut off diplomatic ties with Qatar while Kuwait is trying to mediate between the estranged ex-allies. Russia, Kuwait, Turkey, and Pakistan have all pitched for mediation but the thousand pound gorilla in the room ie USA has not been encouraging a rapprochement. Donald Trump’s favourite mode of communication (tweets) have validated Qatar’s economic blockade. His latest tweet where he says “Perhaps this will be the beginning of the end to the horror of terrorism” betokens hauteur that eggs on the anti-Qatar coalition in the Gulf. The first act of the Qatar-Saudi conflict drama was played out in the political tumult of the Arab Spring in 2011 when Qatar and Saudi alliance went in the opposite camps supporting the rival regimes. The present denouement is the final act of the simmering rage that had resulted in a similar spat between Qatar and other three Gulf States ie Saudi Arabia, UAE, and Bahrain in 2014.
An increased Russian involvement in Syrian crisis, USA’s cozying up to Saudi Arabia, and Qatar’s estrangement with Egypt and Israel has accelerated her diplomatic isolation in the region. Saudi Arabia was unhappy with Qatar for pursuing an independent foreign policy that set great store by a cordial relationship with Iran and Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt. Qatar’s liberal news channel Aljazeera was also an anathema to the Saudi political sensibilities as it openly propagated a message of liberalism, pluralism, and sectarian harmony that lay athwart Saudi politico-religious ideology.
A Saudi proposal to recognise Israel in 2002 based on pre 1967 borders and in line with ‘two state solution’ was repeated in 2007 but spurned by Israel citing Oslo accord compulsions. The Israeli lobby in Washington that lay a little dormant during Obama’s tenure has reasserted itself due to Trump’s anti-Iran rhetoric. Trump’s recent visit to Saudi Arabia was a clear message of support to a beleaguered Saudi Arabia that during Obama’s tenure had started feeling insecure especially after US-Iran landmark nuclear deal.
Israeli Defence Minister Avigdor Lieberman has recently praised efforts to isolate Qatar. Saudi Arabia had for some time been demanding cessation of support for Hamas and had urged Qatar to deport Hamas leader Salah al Arouri while Qatar was supporting Hamas in its rebuilding efforts in Gaza after Israel induced destruction in 2014.
The Israeli lobby in Washington that lay a little dormant during Obama’s tenure has reasserted itself due to Trump’s anti-Iran rhetoric
Jason Greenblatt the current White House top envoy for Middle East and Trump’s son in law Jared Kushner have had differing visions for Israel-Palestinian rapprochement but Jared Kushner’s version has ultimately prevailed. He has introduced an ‘outside in’ approach according to which the Gulf States will establish friendly ties with Israel as a precondition to a peace agreement.
The destabilising standoff between two opposing camps is going to exact economic as well as political costs at the cost of Arab unity. After Russian support to Bashar al Assad, the Turkish-Qatar strategy of supporting ISIS and Al Nusra front lay in tatters while the Saudi reversal in Yemen coupled with economic woes made it vulnerable to Israeli political agenda.
The current blockade affects food imports and transportation but leaves gas exports unaffected including those routed towards UAE. Most of the food imports are being routed through Oman as the UAE’s Fujairah port an erstwhile mainstay of Qatar has been blockaded.
Turkey has been quick to deploy 3000 troops while Iran and Turkey have both provided emergency food exports to Qatar. The present standoff portends a destabilising rivalry at the cost of Arab unity and regional stability. $2 billion worth of Saudi-Qatar annual trade and $7billion of Qatar-UAE trade is at stake while a $30 billion Saudi banking exposure to Qatar sends shivers down the bankers’ spine. The severance of air ties that ban 70 daily flights from Qatar to Saudi Arabia will have economic costs for Saudi Arabia as well as Qatar. Pakistan must keep emphasising through its diplomatic savoir faire the debilitating costs of the conflict especially to the Saudi Arabia, UAE, and Bahrain that might suffer more than Qatar in the long run on account of lost business opportunities, reduced tourism, and a negative perception as nations that prefer politics over business.
Source: dailytimes.com.pk/opinion/20-Jun-17/qatar-crisis
----
What Do We Want In Afghanistan? — I
By Marvi Sirmed
20-Jun-17
Pakistan’s relationship with Afghanistan has yet again plunged to a nadir following the recent wake of terrorist attacks in Kabul and other Afghan cities.
After Kabul had been hit by a horrific attack killing at least 150 people on May 31, the Afghan leadership held Pakistan responsible for the incident. The Haqqani Network and the Taliban denied responsibility, while some websites carried unverified claims linking the attack to the Islamic State (IS). The official IS publication, Amaq, however, did not carry any statement in this regard.
On June 1, a car bomb went off outside the airport at the eastern Afghan city of Jalalabad, killing one and injuring five others. No group claimed responsibility for the attack. On June 2, more than 1,000 people demonstrated in Kabul’s downtown demanding better security arrangements for the capital. The protest turned violent when the police started firing at demonstrators, resulting in several casualties. The next day a series of blasts at the funeral of one of the deceased left at least 19 people dead. Yet again, no group claimed responsibility but, the very next day, the Afghan Intelligence released a video showing a man held in a crackdown following the blasts confessing to his role and claiming that he had received training in Pakistan.
On June 4, six policemen were killed when two fellow officers opened fire on them in southern Kandahar province. Among those wounded was the Kandahar city district police chief. Qari Yusouf Ahmadi, a Taliban spokesperson, claimed responsibility for the attack.
On June 6, seven people died as a bomb went off outside a historic mosque in Herat — one of the largest cities strategically located along the Afghan-Iran border. Taliban were quick to deny their role. On June 10, three US soldiers were killed in a Green-on-Blue attack on a joint US-Afghan military operation in Nangarhar province. The attack was termed as ‘an insider job’ by US officials. Meanwhile, it was claimed by the Taliban spokesperson Zabihullah Mujahid.On June 15, four people were killed in an explosion inside a Shia mosque in west Kabul’s Dasht-e-Barchi area. Islamic state readily claimed responsibility, after the Taliban yet again denied a role.
The problem with the argument that Afghanistan should look inwards for its troubles is that it can very well be used against Pakistan’s claim that Afghan and Indian intelligence agencies sponsor terrorist attacks from inside its territory
Amidst all this, Afghan president Ashraf Ghani also hosted the Kabul Process meeting on June 6. In an aggressive speech at the congregation, Mr Ghani lamented that his country was suffering “an undeclared war of aggression from Pakistan”. His remarks had followed a statement by the Interior Ministry of Afghanistan holding Pakistan responsible for orchestrating the deadly truck bombing in Kabul.
Instead of relying on the usual denials issued through the Inter-services Public Relations (ISPR), this time Pakistan’s Chief of Army Staff convened a special Corps Commanders Conference that called upon Afghanistan to ‘introspect and not accuse Pakistan of sponsoring terrorism’. Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif also chaired a special meeting of the National Security Committee of the Cabinet that “strongly rejected baseless allegations on Pakistan”.
Afterwards, defence analysts and commentators kept reminding Afghanistan of its failings with references to the weak capacity of Afghan police forces as well as to recent reports that more than 40 percent of Afghan territory remained under the operational control of Taliban or other militant outfits including the Islamic State in Khurasan Province (ISKP). They cautioned the Afghan government that terrorist attacks may well have been launched from militant’s strongholds inside the country.
The problem with this argument is that it could very well be used against Pakistan’s claims that Afghanistan and India sponsor terrorist attacks inside its territory. And no amount of our innocent bewilderment at Afghanistan’s allegations can justify our continued insistence on not tackling the Afghan Taliban on our soil.
In an unusually candid admission on March 1, 2016, Adviser to the Pakistani PM on Foreign Affairs, Sartaj Aziz, had said that Islamabad held considerable influence over the Taliban since several of the group’s leaders lived in the country. His exact quote, while speaking at Washington’s Council on Foreign Relations, was, “Their families are here, we can use those levers to pressurise them to say ‘come to the table’. But we can’t negotiate on behalf of the Afghan government because we cannot offer them what the Afghan government can offer them.”
There has yet been no official denial of Aziz’s statement. Though, in recent informal discussions, this scribe has been caustically told that the security institutions have no knowledge of any Taliban presence in Pakistan and that the question should be posed to Mr. Aziz.
No matter how well we try and twist the narrative, one cannot help but suspect that some unwanted people may indeed be hosted on our land by the authorities. We may in fact be able to find a lot of evidence about this scattered across the country. Those possibly hosted in ‘sensitive’ areas might be cringing every time a statement comes from Foreign Office or Ministry of Defence to the effect that across the board action is being taken against all militants. The question remains: why the hesitation in naming Taliban and Haqqani network?
Our generosity towards ‘some leaders’ might have strategic causes. That is, we need them as our insurance policy in a rapidly changing scenario along the western border. Who knows when the post-drawdown US forces are further scaled down yet another Taliban insurgency gets to power — a la 1996!
In such a scenario, we would not afford a hostile Taliban government having a considerable influence in our areas along the border and in the KP. That too, when Afghan and Indian agencies, we think, have penetrated quite deeply in some of these areas. Remember the Sehwan Sharif attack that took place well inside the Sindh province?
But this thesis hinges on some extremely unlikely assumptions — that the Americans would leave soon with Afghan security infrastructure in shambles and Taliban lionised enough to capture power without difficulty. As this unfolds, the world would look away letting Taliban comfortably reestablish their rule. Surely, Pakistan’s Rommels and Guderians would not be that clueless of the time and space.
So what exactly is our objective in Afghanistan? I will explain it in these pages next week.
Source: dailytimes.com.pk/opinion/20-Jun-17/what-do-we-want-in-afghanistan-i
----
Russia Calling
By Murtaza Shibli
June 17, 2017
Paktan’s entry into the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) couldn’t have come at a more opportune time. Not only has it affirmed Pakistan’s growing importance as an emerging and strategically placed geo-economic safeguard to fit into the new development narrative around the One Belt One Road (OBOR) initiative and its main artery under CPEC, but it also compliments Russia’s similar ambitions in Eurasia.
This adds to Pakistan’s strategic importance for both China and Russia – not only for their own vision to supplement a multi-polar world through economic integration, but also to create a counterbalance to the emerging India-US pivot that wants to diminish Pakistan’s role to a mere Indian proxy. Mushahid Hussain, the chairman of the Senate Defence Committee, views the SCO membership for Pakistan as an opportunity to widen foreign policy options in a regional and global context. He also rightly points out that it has brought “India and Pakistan at par in the emerging regional scenario, where India’s attempts to isolate Pakistan have been an abysmal failure”.
In this backdrop, the SCO summit at Astana was a big success for Pakistan and its growing stature, much to the detriment of India – which, after 9/11, was promoted as the main protagonist in the region. In addition, the anti-Pakistan, anti-Muslim Hindu extremist government of Narendra Modi has failed to gain any traction for his publicly pledged goal to ‘isolate Pakistan’, as Pakistan has emerged as an important economic and security ally in the region and beyond.
At the Astana Summit, India had to suffer a bigger humiliation in the form of the growing cooperation between Russia and Pakistan. A clear manifestation of this came in the form of a bilateral meeting between Russian President Vladimir Putin and Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif. President Putin was candid in his vision and determination about the future trajectory of relations between the two countries as he described Pakistan as an important partner in South Asia – clearly signalling the Indian intentions of ‘isolating Pakistan’ as dead. This must have come as a shock for Narendra Modi – not only as a personal failure for his continued attempts to link Pakistan as the source of troubles in the region and beyond, but also because Russia has moved miles ahead from seeing the region from the Indian perspective.
A prominent Russian political analyst Andrew Korybko described the development as “unthinkable even to countenance only a few years ago”.
In the near future, there is a strong likelihood that we will see greater security cooperation between both countries against the terrorist groups that India supports and operates in Afghanistan against Pakistan and CPEC. This cooperation will also temper the anti-Pakistan activities emanating from Iran and the UAE – including sustenance for certain sectarian and terrorist formations that they nurture exclusively or in collaboration with India. It will effectively render the Indian efforts to block Pakistan from a stake in Afghanistan’s future to a naught as Russia increasingly views Pakistan as a reliable partner. It not only sees it as a trade partner – whether bilaterally or through CPEC or SCO – but also views it as a strategic partner for future security in the region.
This widens Pakistan’s room for manoeuvre and would also help gather support for Pakistan’s efforts to give everyone, including the Taliban, a stake in the peace of Afghanistan. It would allow the regional powers to fight Isis terror formations within Afghanistan, which are believed to be supported by India and its allies.
President Putin, in his keynote speech at the SCO Summit, emphasised the strategic importance of CPEC and its relationship with other similar projects. He asked the member countries to “focus on combining efforts...[and coordinating] national strategies and multilateral projects through the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation” with an aim to combine the potentials of the Eurasian Economic Community, SCO, Asean and OBOR. Andrew Korybko interprets this as Putin “marshalling all of the attendees in support of Beijing’s world-changing geo-economic quest [to] develop the emerging multipolar world order”.
Korybko further elaborates: “Given that CPEC is OBOR’s flagship project, this can rightly be interpreted as Russia calling on all SCO members – including India – to accept and participate in this endeavour. It should therefore go without saying that Russia supports CPEC and wants India to as well”. Korybko construes that Modi’s resistance to CPEC remains a red line for Russia that would be resisted and “decreed in the most public way possible”. He also openly accuses India of waging the ‘hybrid war’ on CPEC and New Delhi’s use of terrorism in promoting its regionally obstructive agenda. He predicted that Putin’s open call for India to join the CPEC was Russia “giving India its last chance to behave as a responsible Eurasian actor”.
Postscript: During the summit, Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif was, for a brief moment, shown lending a casual ear to his military secretary, Brigadier Akmal Aziz, who drew Sharif’s attention to his live microphone that needed to be turned off. This footage of a few seconds sent the leading Indian ‘news’ channel, Times Now, into a frenzy. In a display that could only be described as pornographic, the commentators claimed that the prime minister was taking instructions from the military. This was repeated in several high-pitched commentaries – including official social media channels – and showed the growing psychological imbalance across Indian institutions.
Appendage: The Indian news agency, PTI – considered close to the Indian intelligence establishment – also came up with its own ‘news’ story. It claimed the Chinese President Xi Jinping skipped a customary meeting with Sharif in a “rare snub” and linked it to the recent murder of a Chinese couple in Balochistan who were engaged in secret proselytizing on behalf of some underground Catholic ministry. The story, which was widely reported across India, was trashed by the Chinese Foreign Ministry as “just nonsense and unwanted”. The ministry clarified that Xi and Sharif “met several times” during the summit. The explanation was not satisfactory for the Indian media. Commenting on the Chinese rebuttal, Scroll, a news website, observed: “The spokesperson did not confirm if the meetings between Xi and Sharif were bilateral in nature or not”.
Source: thenews.com.pk/print/211084-Russia-calling
-----
Trapped In Poverty
By Mashaal Gauhar
20-Jun-17
London’s Grenfell Tower tragedy in which over 30 people were killed when a fire engulfed a block of government-funded flats shines a spotlight on the Dickensian aspects of life where living standards between rich and poor differ dramatically.
In a city where affordable housing for citizens remains elusive, this building was covered in cheap, flammable material. An accidental fire which could have been contained had adequate safety mechanisms been in place instead escalated into tragedy. Ironically, the Council of Kensington and Chelsea where the building is located is one of the wealthiest in the city. Residents had continuously voiced their concern about the building’s safety but were routinely ignored. This stands as a damning indictment of a capital city which is considered to be the premiere playground of international oligarchs and ultra high net worth individuals.
The tragedy has echoes of Britain’s Victorian era — a time of deprivation when government assumed no responsibility for the welfare of the poor who subsisted largely on the generosity of charities. Ironically, this destitution existed during Britain’s imperial apogee when the country enjoyed unprecedented wealth from its colonies. Urban squalor, unbearable working conditions, soaring infant mortality rates and the outbreak of epidemics among Britain’s working poor led the government to develop the notion of a welfare state. The ideal of a social welfare state was finally implemented in 1945 and became a benchmark of excellence for much of the world representing a system where human development and quality of life was placed at the heart of the country’s economic programme. However, the Victorian attitudes which Dickens so eloquently captured in his books have returned. Sharp reductions in welfare funding in the name of fiscal austerity, a sustained vilification of the poor by certain media platforms, the mismanagement of the national health service and prohibitively expensive housing are indicative of a disregard for society’s most vulnerable. More recently, immigrant workers who often undertake the lowest-paid and most menial of jobs have become the focus of intolerance and exploitation. In fact, the residential profile of the Grenfell Tower block was overwhelmingly poor immigrants, refugees and asylum seekers.
The opening lines of Charles Dickens’ masterpiece A Tale of Two Cities aptly describe the duality of life in developing countries like Pakistan where a deep chasm exists between the privileged and the poor
Dickens himself was no stranger to the heartlessness of poverty. As a nine-year-old boy he was forced to work in a boot polish factory to pay off his father’s debts while his parents were incarcerated in a debtor’s prison. This searing experience profoundly influenced his writing which is why child labour is such an enduring theme in his books.
For me, the tragedy conjured memories of the 2012 Karachi industrial fire which killed almost 300 people when employees were trapped in a burning textile factory. Such enterprises generate millions for industrial magnates who seemingly display a disregard for the hundreds of people who toil in their commercial establishments with inadequate health and safety standards and minimal rights. A lack of governance and enforcement means that the industrialist class can all too easily bypass basic health and safety standards for their employees such as fire exits, alarms and water sprinklers. Profits taking precedence over the safety of people is a problem across the developing world. In 2013, over 2,000 people were killed when a textile factory collapsed in Bangladesh. These sweat shops are often the primary suppliers to major international retail brands which reap profits that run into the billions.
In recent times, the British government has been calling for greater deregulation insisting that regulations are expensive, unwieldy and an obstacle to productivity. In fact, the European Union’s raft of regulatory standards was one of the arguments for leaving the Union. However, as the lives lost in Pakistan and Bangladesh through negligence and lax standards reveal far-reaching deregulation programmes which impact essential public protection are weighted against the poor, often with fatal consequences. These avoidable tragedies must form the impetus for universal reform to protect the lives of the marginalised poor both in the United Kingdom and the developing world.
Though the opening lines of Dickens’ masterpiece a Tale of Two Cities was written in the context of pre-revolutionary Paris and London, his words still aptly describe the duality of life in developing countries like Pakistan where a deep chasm between the privileged and poor still prevails: “It was the best of times, it was the worst of times...”
Source: dailytimes.com.pk/opinion/20-Jun-17/trapped--in-poverty
----
Panama Leaks, Confusion Galore
By Mohammad Jamil
June 20, 2017
Since the Supreme Court of Pakistan took suo motu of the Panama Leaks, leaders of the PML-N and opposition parties have been giving their interpretations of the remarks by the honorable judges during the proceedings, which they should not have done. Confusion galore in the wake of accusations and counter-accusations between the respondents in the Panama leaks case and the members of the Joint Investigations Team (JIT) formed by the bench of the Supreme Court of Pakistan. PML-N leaders criticise the way JIT is conducting investigations, whereas many analysts are of the view that campaign against JIT is meant to make it controversial. First of all Hussain Nawaz had objected to the way the JIT was conducting the investigations, followed by PML- N leaders’ onslaught on the members of the JIT. Then PML-N Senator Nehal Hashmi openly threatened those conducting investigations against Sharif family.
Addressing a gathering Nehal Hashmi had said: “Remember, you are in service now but you will retire one day; we will make it hard for you and your family to live in Pakistan.” Naturally he was not referring to the politicians but members of the JIT formed by the Supreme of Pakistan. Chief Justice of Pakistan had taken notice of Hashmi’s outpourings and later he was served a notice for contempt of court. Earlier, PML-N leaders had opposed the inclusion of two members of the JIT, and later raised questions about two more JIT members.
However, the confrontation between judiciary and the government and clash between the institutions is fraught with perils; and if restraint is not shown the country can descend into chaos and anarchy. Meanwhile, President National Bank of Pakistan Saeed Ahmad wrote a letter to Supreme Court Registrar about the alleged maltreatment and harassment by the JIT.
NBP President Saeed Ahmad had said: “I understand that the court has ruled that all those who appear in front of JIT should be treated with respect. However, I felt during questioning I was insulted, threatened and subjected to undue pressure.”
On the other hand on June 7, head of the JIT had apprised the Supreme Court about the problems JIT members were facing, on which court ordered him to submit separate request for the case. In pursuance of the above instructions, head of the JIT Wajid Zia submitted a petition to Supreme Court pertaining to the problems faced by the JIT during the probe. In his petition he has told the Supreme Court regarding security concerns, criticism on members, external pressure and other obstacles faced by the JIT. The petition was prepared by Wajid Zia and Irfan Naeem Mangi of the Balochistan NAB.
The special three-member bench of the apex court headed by Justice Aijaz Afzal is hearing the case and will give its verdict on the charges leveled by both sides on each other. The NAB nominee for the JIT, Irfan Naeem Mangi, was issued a show-cause notice for ‘removal from service’ on April 25 by the NAB in the light of the apex court judgment on illegal appointments in NAB vide Supreme Court order dated 31-03-2017 in suo moto case No. 13/2016 and in accordance with section 8.02 of NAB’s TCS. Intelligence Bureau (IB) chief Aftab Sultan has confirmed that information on members of the joint investigation team (JIT) – tasked with investigating the Sharif family’s offshore properties – were gathered because of the high-profile nature of the Panama Papers case. However, the questions are being raised as to why this action has been taken at this point in time when important case is in the apex court.
It has to be mentioned that the process of formation of JIT was started April 20 2017, and show-cause notice was issued to Mr. Mangi on April 25 2017. Some analysts on TV channels believe that it was an effort to make JIT controversial on the grounds that the NAB nominee was facing a show-cause notice, which could result in his removal from the service. In its submission to the Supreme Court the NAB denied that the show-cause notice to one of the members of the JIT was issued with malafide intentions. “Show-cause notice was issued to Mr. Mangi pursuant an order of this Honourable Court like 77 other persons prior to formation of JIT. The show-cause to Irfan Mangi dated 25th April 2017 stated: “You are informed through this notice that your initial appointment in NAB as Deputy Director was inconsistent with TSC 8.02 & NAO, 2002.”
The member of Joint Investigation Team (JIT) Irfan Naeem Mangi has submitted reply to National Accountability Bureau show cause notice requesting NAB in his reply to keep the notice pending or to withdraw it till the probe for Panama case is completed due to his commitment with JIT investigations. It is worth noting that the JIT formed by the Supreme Court of Pakistan has the mandate to investigate, question and ask for documents to support the claim of prime minister’s sons Hussain Nawaz and Hassan Nawaz for having acquired the properties out of the genuine income and no money laundering or illegal transactions had taken place. However, the commentriat and analysts in TV channels talk shows say that the timing of issuing such a notice is intriguing. In reply submitted to the Supreme Court, the DG NAB has conceded that the agency collected details of the members of the joint investing team (JIT) investigating the Panamagate case.
Source; pakobserver.net/panama-leaks-confusion-galore/
----
A Pyrrhic Victory For Theresa May
By Shahid M Amin
June 20, 2017
British Prime Minister Theresa May must be regretting her decision to hold a snap election on June 8, 2017. Her Conservative Party possessed a majority of 12 seats in parliament, consisting of 650 members, and there were three years still left before the scheduled elections. However, opinion polls showed a 20-point lead for Conservatives over Labour, and May thought she would secure a larger majority in a new election that would strengthen her hand in negotiating Britain’s exit from European Union (EU). In a televised statement, she said: “I have concluded the only way to guarantee certainty and security for years is to hold this election. Division in parliament will risk our ability to make a success of Brexit.”
But on election day, May could only win a pyrrhic victory. Her party secured 317 seats as against 330 in the outgoing parliament. Labour increased its strength to 262 seats as against 232. Conservatives are still the largest party but are short of 326 votes needed to form a government. In the post-election reactions, May is being heavily criticised by both friends and foes. Almost two-thirds of her party members want May to resign. However, she is determined to hang on and has already been asked by the Queen to form a new government. The likely coalition ally would be DUP (Democratic Unionist Party of Northern Ireland), a religious-minded, pro-EU party. Such an unwieldy coalition would hardly give May the “strong and stable” government she had promised to strengthen her hand in Britain’s exit from EU. Instead, Britain now has a “hung parliament” where May’s own position as Prime Minister seems vulnerable. She would remain in power but would not be able to pass any major laws. It is likely she will become ineffectual and unpopular and would be at a disadvantage in dealing with the EU in the complex negotiations ahead on Brexit.
So what went wrong? Most observers agree that the election result shows a direct repudiation of May’s approach to Brexit negotiations with EU. There are many ways in which the UK can formally leave EU, either retaining some ties or cutting many. May was pushing for a “harder” Brexit, which meant limiting trade and immigration with EU. This seems far less likely now. The stakes are high. The nature of deal the UK makes with EU will shape the lives of millions. Some analysts argue that the future of EU itself is also at stake, including its global role.
May did not run an effective election campaign. Despite their initial lead in polls, the Conservatives saw a sharp decline in closing days of the election. The party manifesto was poorly-designed and offered little hope to the people. It included a proposal to make the elderly pay what was dubbed the “dementia tax”. This was criticised as being heartless and cruel and was hastily withdrawn from the manifesto. Cabinet members were sidelined and learnt about the manifesto shortly before its release. From that point onwards, the polls showed a declining curve for the Conservatives. There was criticism of the choice of campaign managers as also the Presidential style of the campaign, focusing on the figure of Theresa May. She was criticized for refusing to take part in televised debates with her opponents. She chose not to speak to large audiences and was unimpressive in her campaign speeches. The word “robotic” was commonly used in British press to describe her performances.
Labour Party has been the main beneficiary of the election and has 30 more seats in the new House of Commons. Its leader Jeremy Corbyn was able to generate some enthusiasm among the young voters. The youth turnout rose from 43% in 2015 to 72% in the latest election.
Another party that fared poorly was the Scottish National Party (SNP) which lost 21 seats and now has 35. This result would diminish prospects of Scotland’s secession from the UK. The SNP leader decided to resign on June 14. The white supremacist party UKIP secured just 1.8% of the popular vote, down from 12.7% in 2015. It failed to win a single seat in parliament. Its manifesto had sought ban on burqa, outlawing of sharia law and imposing a moratorium on new Islamic schools. Following the election, its leader Paul Nuttall had to resign. The Liberal Democrats did get 4 more seats but with a total of 12 seats, they remain a minor force. Its leader Tim Farron also resigned after the election.
Britain today is a less stable country than before, mainly due to Theresa May. She took an unnecessary gamble that backfired badly. The biggest impact of the election will be on Brexit. The Conservatives have a harsh anti-immigration position, calling for no more than 100,000 people to be admitted to Britain per year. For this to happen, they need to end free flow of people from the EU to Britain. Three million EU citizens currently live in the UK, and 250,000 moved in last year. The EU is unlikely to agree to this while continuing to allow Britain access to EU market. 44% of British exports go to the rest of Europe at this time. Getting cut off from the EU market could badly hurt the British economy. It now seems likely that May would have to accept softer terms for Brexit as the voters have clearly rejected her request for a hard Brexit mandate.
Source: pakobserver.net/pyrrhic-victory-theresa-may/
----
URL: https://www.newageislam.com/pakistan-press/having-opinion-era-intolerance-munir/d/111614