Law Vs Order in Pakistan By Babar Sattar: New Age Islam's Selection, 20 January 2018
New Age Islam Edit Bureau
20 January 2018
Law Vs Order in Pakistan
By Babar Sattar
• Weighing Model Town Report against Legal Strategies
By Hassan Yousaf Shah
• Unity Govt — Impediment to Peace
By Mohammad Jamil
• Russian Growing Adventurism
By Dost Muhammad Barrech
• 2018: Fear and Hope
By Khurram Minhas
• Contradictions in Pak-US Ties
By Muhammad Usman
• Push Against Mush
By Irfan Husain
• The Jilted Taj Mahal
By Murtaza Shibli
Compiled By New Age Islam Edit Bureau
-----
Law Vs Order in Pakistan
By Babar Sattar
January 20, 2018
At critical junctures in history when we have been asked to choose between law and order, we have chosen order at the expense of the law. Are we sliding towards that familiar juncture again?
From Panama to the Faizabad Dharna to the Balochistan meltdown and now the PAT-led ‘grand’ alliance, the universe seems to be conspiring to bring the PML-N down or weaken it to a point where it can’t win a significant presence in parliament in Election 2018. What if the universe fails to realise its goals while staying within the realm of the constitution?
Have we come all this way to risk another PML-N government in the saddle till 2023 with Nawaz Sharif calling the shots from Jati Umra? Panama hurt NS and the label of ‘Godfather’ and being corrupt sticks to him like tar in view of all those who don’t like him or vote for him. But what about those who do? How many of those who voted from him in 2013 will be pulled away due to Panama? Has the Barelvi vote, which was in the PML-N’s camp, eloped post-Faizabad and will it swing the elections in Punjab on seats with less than a 10,000 vote victory margin?
Balochistan doesn’t fit squarely within Pakistan’s mainstream politics. It is still a land of sardars, electables and the establishment (where lucre has more pull in the political theatre than some other places). Those who formed the 21-member PML-N parliamentary party flocked together because the PML-N was in power. Mainstream parties have no committed voter base in Balochistan (only religious and nationalist parties do). And so, in 2018 voters won’t penalise those who deserted the PML-N. But Punjab, with a strong PML-N base, may not be fit for use of the Balochistan model.
Operation Balochistan will cost the PML-N a few seats in Senate. It will lead the expedient Punjabi electable to conclude that the rupture between the PML-N and the establishment is complete (if they hadn’t already read the writing on the wall?). But have Panama, Faizabad and Balochistan inflicted irreparable harm on the PML-N? The jury is out. But if polls, by-elections and the opposition’s show in Lahore are indicators, the PML-N is down but not out. NS is wounded, but still alive, kicking and also toxic. Will the conspiring universe just shrug its shoulder and settle down?
Turn on the TV any evening and you’ll hear chatter about the Bangladesh model; a government of technocrats; an extended caretaker setup to cleanse the Augean stables; a reformer who will save us from corrupt and ineffectual politicos; how we are a plutocracy or a society unfit for representative government; and how a ‘controlled democracy’ is the thing for us. Notwithstanding claims of how the skies are caving in and how the ‘system’ is broken, the refrain we hear is that the time for direct military rule is over.
If the system is indeed broken, how does another election that will throw up the same faces help? The foul-mouthed Rizvi and his gang camped at Faizabad reduced the writ of civilian institutions to a farce. What will now inject public confidence back into the system? We are so polarised as a polity at this point that the possibility of any election result being accepted by all contestants is grim indeed. So who in the political arena will stand as a bulwark against the praetorians, should they wish to (or find it necessary to) assume direct control?
The best case for many seems to be a rickety coalition led by IK. But IK, egged on by Sheikh Rashid, strengthens the skies-caving-in narrative (and more so this Wednesday when he hurled abuse at the parliament he is a part of and wishes to use as a vehicle to assume power in 2018). If he doesn’t emerge as the PM-hopeful post-Election 2018 or realises that he isn’t likely to even before the election, will PTI take a chance by staying on the right side of the umpire or standing against it in defence of the system that IK despises?
What about the PPP? The PPP’s political domain has shrunk to Sindh. Will the expedient Zardari-led PPP, with its new Nawaz-is-a-security-risk mode of politics, stand up against political engineering if Sindh is left alone as its bailiwick? Will purging Punjab of the PML-N not open the political space that the PPP could also hope to capture? The Zardari-led PPP sides with anything that promises a shake-up of the PML-N in Punjab, even if that means playing second fiddle to TUQ. Will this PPP fight for the continuity of the political process as a matter of principle?
And what about the PML-N? NS fell on the establishment’s sword in 1993 and 1999. He believes that he has once again been ousted by design, and is fighting with all his might at the moment. What if he concludes that engineering from behind the curtain has worked and, after suffering disgrace at the hands of the judiciary, he might be discredited at the polls? If he is ousted, he survives politically and whenever democracy returns his daughter will be a key candidate for the top job. If he must lose, doesn’t he look better losing to the establishment?
What else will prevent a direct military rule in Pakistan? The post-9/11 security has trumped all else, including democracy as a value – Egypt and the Middle East being cases in point. Our relations with the US are at a breaking point. The aid that has been cut might not hurt much. But what happens when we go back to international lending institutions and the US throws a spanner? The only way to salvage relations will be to work with the US on the Haqqani Network and the Taliban. And that is something no civilian government in Pakistan can deliver.
Our politicos have left themselves no policy space to make good with the US. But relations can easily be reset by the military, which has a monopoly over defining what is in our national interest and what isn’t. Will the US bat an eyelid if the military takes over and promises to give the US some face-saving in Afghanistan? Will the Saudis get upset with the one institution they can lean on to pursue their empire ambition in the Middle East? Will China care who runs Pakistan so long as CPEC remains secure and on track?
On October 8, 1958, Ayub emphasised that: “we kept severely aloof from politics…let me announce in unequivocal terms that our ultimate aim is to restore democracy but of the type that people can understand and work”. On March 24, 1969, handing over the reins to Yahya he wrote: “calling the assembly in such chaotic conditions can only aggravate the situation… It is beyond the capacity of the civil government to deal with the present complex situation and the defence forces must step in”.
On July 5, 1977, Zia said that: “it must be quite clear to you now that when the political leaders fail to steer the country out of a crisis, it is an inexcusable sin for the armed forces to sit as silent spectators”. In 1999, Musharraf claimed that: “the choice before us on October 12 was between saving the nation and the constitution. As the constitution is part of the nation, I chose to save the nation…This is not martial law, only another path toward democracy”. The army chief has undoubtedly expressed commitment to the necessity – and continuation – of the democratic civilian setup. But if it were another army chief or a chief with a different mind, do we honestly believe there would be no room for another uplifting ‘my dear countrymen’ speech?
We have an independent judiciary whose suo motu jurisprudence inadvertently fuels the broken system narrative. Many legal minds agree that, in its activist zeal, the SC overreaches into the executive’s domain, which is then justified on the basis of exigency. But that is a slippery slope. If we can justify overreach by one institution in the name of necessity, why can’t we justify that by another? We do have an SC judgment though that declared Musharraf’s second coup to be treason. Can this or the nuisance causing Musharraf’s non-trial deter a military takeover?
Here is the bottom line: the system hangs by the ambition and convictions and belief of both the army chief and the chief justice. The year 2018 will be a testing year for democracy and rule of law. May both chiefs pass the test – as they claimed they would.
Source: thenews.com.pk/print/270599-law-vs-order
-----
Weighing Model Town Report against Legal Strategies
By Hassan Yousaf Shah
January 19, 2018
The Baqir Najfi report is likely to hit the headlines again, and create serious ripples on the political scene in the coming months. Political commentators and pundits have long since the inception of the Baqir Najfi commission, pondered upon the aftermath of the final report but its importance and significance is still misplaced, if not mistaken. It is therefore important to understand if the commission report has the important elements to make it legally potent and in so doing will the report rope in the chief executive of the province for the Model Town carnage?
Is the commission report lethal for the chief minister and his aide Rana Sanaullah? Will the report force the province’s chief executive to resign amidst protests to do so? Will the protest and the Baqir Najfi report produce sufficient moral legal strength to unseat the chief minister? To begin the most important aspect of the report is to understand Baqir Najfi commission report’s weight and significance.
Point one. There is a marked and clear distinction between an “inquiry commission” and an “investigation”.
Point two. For the sake of simplicity, in any criminal trial which is what the Model Town carnage is eventually going to shape into, the investigation is carried out by the police. Investigation in a legal proceeding is different from an inquiry or commission’s findings.
Point three: This report is not an investigation rather it can be treated more of a “fact finding commission” henceforth this will not replace the proper investigation process. If any legal mind will want this report to be part of the investigation, it will be overshadowed by a police investigation and will not be a well-advised legal strategy from the Pakistan Awami Tehreek’s point of view.
Point four. The report leaves unanswered questions and clues for someone else to find out. The clues or incomplete report, or clues like which themselves need further investigation or inquiry, only helps strengthen the case of the accused.
Point five. Unlike the media frenzy on late-night talk shows, the murder trial will resume in the court of a sessions judge which is the appropriate forum. The trial judge is not going to be swayed by political sentiments instead he will rely on hard evidence submitted and gathered through a proper police investigation and not from a commission’s findings. The commission will be aired on talk shows but it will carry little weightage in the trial.
However, the fate of the report is not going to end here. Its role in the trial will have to undergo one other formidable test as well. The inquiry commission’s finding cannot be presented in the court as evidence unless the court accepts it as an “expert’s opinion” or unless it is cross-examined by defence lawyers. Let me make it simple. In order to be admitted as an important piece of evidence, the honourable judge of the high court who headed the commission has to stand and face cross-examination — which was seldom done in the past. Without this aspect the report will have little or no legal standing in the criminal trial in the court of a district judge. Of course it would be interesting to watch if the case travels to the superior courts and if they decide to accept the report or any of its contents. Once again, as stressed above, the report which leaves many questions unanswered and leaves several clues instead should have asserted more strongly and made its records potent for the case to proceed it to the superior courts.
Not dwelling much into legal jargon, in simple terms the commission’s findings are not a substitute for a proper police investigation in the matter. Which brings us to the two most important questions: Why have a commission then? What would be Shahbaz Sharif’s legal team’s strategy from here onwards?
As to why the commission was constituted if the entire process is to be investigated by the police? The answer to this question lies in the way commissions were constituted under the Commission Act of 1956. The purpose is mostly to do with offloading political pressure and pacifying public anxiety if not managing their opinion. That is exactly why the government chose to make one such commission, because it does little legal damage and instead shifts the entire focus from a court of sessions towards “ostentatious” media loved commissions.
The second-most important aspect — what is going to be different in the police investigation if the commission is not going to be referred during the trial? The answer to the second question is self-defeating as how can a police investigation and the outcome can ever be termed “fair” and “just” especially since the police led the massacre and allegedly allowed by the chief executive or his law minister, both of whom are the main accused in the case? PAT lawyers or those representing the victims will focus and try to either involve courts or target the investigation report directly by requesting it to be placed under an independent authority other than the police itself. If that is so, the Baqir Najfi report will be heard quoted in courtrooms and in the media much more than you are expecting. I would if I were part of the PAT legal team. As a lawyer on the defence side, I would have let them and focus too much on the commission report without realising that it must be read in collaboration with other evidences. With passage of time, the trial is being delayed and attacking “minor issues” distracting the PAT lawyers.
So, can the report or the trial seek to remove the chief minister of Punjab from office? There is no previous precedent when the chief executive of a province under investigation could be asked to step down, however there could be other repercussions. From a political angle, this could have a devastating impact on the Sharifs.
Source: tribune.com.pk/story/1612194/6-weighing-model-town-report-legal-strategies/
-----
Unity Govt — Impediment to Peace
By Mohammad Jamil
January 19, 2018
AS a result of the US-backed power-sharing deal, unity government was formed with Ashraf Ghani as President and his rival candidate Abdullah Abdullah as his Chief Executive. The deal was brokered by the then US Secretary of State John Kerry to prevent the bitterly contested elections from plunging Afghanistan into turmoil. Some of Dr Ashraf Ghani’s aides had parted ways with him after he struck the deal; thus weakening his position to start with. Both Ashraf Ghani and Abdullah Abdullah had promised to put their differences aside; but this never happened, according to a recent report published by the International Crisis Group (ICG). Initially, Ashraf Ghani wished to improve relations with Pakistan; but due to American and Indian pressure he adopted policies to appease them. In fact, the unity government is the problem rather than the solution to the problem, as it does not want to enter into meaningful negotiations with the Taliban.
Meanwhile, Afghan President Dr Ashraf Ghani has said that “without American assistance Kabul can’t fight the many militant groups active in the country after 16 years of US involvement, and the Afghan national army won’t last longer than six months on its own.” This is candid admission about Afghan government’s failure, rather an expression of helplessness. Of course, the ego of the sole super power America would not allow it to accept that after 16 years of war whereby the US and the NATO forces had failed to establish the writ of the state. The US had invaded Afghanistan 16 years ago when the Taliban government was swiftly overthrown and driven out. However, after decades of war, with once peak of about 150000 US and NATO troops and spending one trillion dollars, they could not eliminate or even deter the Taliban who control about 50 per cent of the Afghanistan territory.
Saying that at least “21 international terrorist groups” are operating in his country, Ghani warned that “terrorists can strike at any time. Dozens of suicide bombers are being sent. There are factories producing suicide bombers. We are under siege,” Ghani told the ‘60 Minutes’ program in CBS. He continues to accuse Pakistan of supporting the Taliban, and holds Pakistan responsible for his failures. Russia had warned last month that while the Pentagon is focused on the Taliban fighters, who control approximately half the country, Islamic State (IS, formerly ISIS) militants are expanding their presence in Afghanistan. Military analysts Kamal Alam told RT: “The majority of the country is far worse than it was before the US and NATO came in… NATO at their peak had 150,000 soldiers, about five years ago, and they could not turn the tide,” military analyst Kamal Alam told RT.
But neither lesson was learnt from the past Afghan history nor from the last 16 years presence of US/NATO troops in Afghanistan. Instead of taking right steps, the US continues with the policy of creating roadblocks in the path of peace in Afghanistan and the region at large. On Wednesday, returning from a UN Security Council visit to Afghanistan, US Ambassador Nikki Haley stressed the Kabul government wanted world powers to step up pressure on Pakistan. Haley joined the 14 other council envoys for talks with top Afghan leaders in Kabul at the weekend as the government considered holding peace talks with the Taliban to end decades of insurgency. “They feel confident that the Taliban will be coming to the table,” Haley told reporters at UN headquarters. While the peace talks will be Afghan-led, the Kabul government did request that the Security Council weigh in to bring Pakistan onboard.
In October 2017, in her address to an event organised by US India Friendship Council, Haley quoted Trump having said: “India can help the US keep an eye on Pakistan as President Donald Trump has taken tougher approach to Islamabad harbouring terrorists.” Haley was born Nimrata Randhawa to Ajit Singh Randhawa and mother Raj Kaur Randhawa, who had emigrated from Punjab to Canada and then to the US in the 1960s. Her Indian connection speaks volumes about hatred against Pakistan. Anyhow, Senior Afghan officials said the other day that meetings were underway in Turkey between their government and representatives of the Taliban, although the insurgents denied that any talks were taking place. No formal talks with the Taliban have ever been held, and various indirect efforts have repeatedly failed, most recently in June 2017, in the wake of a truck bombing in Kabul that killed hundreds at the entrance to the Green Zone, the diplomatic and government quarter.
Significantly, the three-day talks also included Hamayoon Jarir, an adviser to President Ashraf Ghani of Afghanistan and a major figure in Hezb-i-Islami, an insurgent faction that made peace with the government in late 2016. A senior Afghan official in Kabul confirmed that talks in Istanbul had begun on Saturday and were to continue until Monday. He said representatives of the Taliban were present, but described them as unofficial. However, Zabihullah Mujahid, the Taliban spokesman, denied in a Twitter post that any talks involving representatives of the group were taking place. Mohammad Akram Khpalwak, secretary-general of the High Peace Council, said that the talks in Istanbul were not official, and that any involvement by Khalili, the council’s chief, would have been personal, not official. A spokesman for the office of the Afghan president declined to comment, but said he was unaware of any talks taking place. This shows real intentions of Afghan president.
Source: pakobserver.net/unity-govt-impediment-peace/
-----
Russian Growing Adventurism
By Dost Muhammad Barrech
January 19, 2018
RUSSIA, underestimated by the US and Europe, after the disintegration of the Soviet Union now has accelerated its potent influence in international politics. The West after Cold War confined Russia merely to its neighbouring countries. Russia, under the leadership of Vladimir Putin since 2002, has involved itself in International Politics splendidly in regaining the prior ascendency. Moscow, since 2002, has engaged in shrewd diplomacy, military intelligence, and cyber warfare to have an unprecedented influence in Asia, Africa and Latin America.
A bona fide reason behind the Russian new adventurism is to undermine the US led- liberal International Order, and also showcasing its role as global power. The Russian annexation of Crimean 2014 was a strong message of Putin to erode the US-led democracy in Ukraine. The US support to Kiev was a geo-strategic gain but it was a matter of survival for Russia. Joan Mearsheimer, an Offensive Realist rightly says, every regional and global power desires to have a monolithic influence in its peripheries. Appropriately, Moscow, tries to expand the Russian foothold in its peripheries to perpetuate a buffer zone being pro-Russian. In Russian, peripheries Ukraine, Georgia and Moldova are not under the tutelage of Moscow. Moscow, subsequently, engaged in enfeebling political transitions of aforementioned countries, stopping their ties with the West.
Moscow, on the other hand, is obsessed with growing Chinese influence in the Central Asia and leaves no stone unturned to expedite its influence in the region. Meanwhile, Moscow feels insecure in the presence of the Western Trans-Atlantic institutions, such as the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), —the United States, and the European Union (EU) and has endeavoured to create divisions within the US allies. Trump’s “America first” slogan further consolidates Putin’s contemplation of creating division and differences within the US allies. Alienated by the Trump’s unpredictable intention, the EU is hanging in the balance and seeks to de-escalate the US dependency too. Moscow assiduously exercises an opportunity, being created by the Trump administration.
Russia, by following the trajectory of the Soviet Union intends to have a role in the Balkans, playing the card of Christian Orthodox and nationalist approach to prevent the integration of Balkans in European structures. Meanwhile, supporting the regime of Bashar-al-Assad in Syria by the Moscow is attributed to gain the Russian domination in the Middle East and stopping the presence of Islamic State (IS). Russia also has a naval facility in Tartus in Syria, giving access to reach the Mediterranean Sea.
Iran and Turkey once at daggers drawn, now realized the potential of Russia to de-escalate Middle East’s chronic issues. Both, Iran and Turkey came on one page, by virtue of Kurdish referendum held in Iraq, on September 25, 2017, demanded independence from Baghdad. The independence of Kurd in Iraq poses a threat to the national integrity of Iran and Turkey as in both countries Kurds inhabit; the independence of Kurd state in Iraq might instigate Iranian and Turkish Kurds for the secession. Russia, in this regard plays a substantial role for Iran and Turkey to protect their national integrity. Russian influence is also pre-requisite in the region, to eliminate IS and to resolve Syrian crisis.
Saudi Arabia, an influential player of the Middle East also tilts towards Russia; Saudi King Salman premier visit to Russia demonstrates that Saudi Arabia is looking forward to evolving its foreign policy and seeing new markets for the consolidation of its economy. Saudi’s differences with the US regarding Iran nuclear deal, compels King Salman to have cordial ties with Russia. Putin, on that occasion, accentuated the significance of realpolitik and categorically said that “Is there anything in the world that stays unchanged?” Putin said “I think that all things changed”.
The Russian presence is increasingly expanding in South Asia, making alignments with China and Pakistan. Putin sees South Asia in the lens of Russian competition with the West. In Putin’s South Asian policy, Pakistan by all means a worthwhile asset. Both Russia and Pakistan held first joint military exercise in September 2016. Russia in 2014 lifted an arm embargo against Pakistan and had pledged to send Mi-35M attack helicopters to Pakistan. Trump’s recent tweet against Pakistan has already sparked the war of words between the US and Pakistan. Divergence of interest between the US and Pakistan has created convergence of interest between Russia and Pakistan. Trump’s belligerence approach seems to be further reinforcing the alignments between Russian, China and Pakistan.
The dilemma of Afghanistan for the Russia cannot be ruled out, particularly in the presence of IS in the region. Russia is exceedingly concerned about the IS foothold in Afghanistan and believes that Russian Muslims could be the best target of the IS indoctrination. There is a prevailing assumption that Afghan Taliban are being supported by the Russia to counter IS. The US and Afghan officials stated that since 2015, Russia had been providing funding and arms to Afghan Taliban.
Realistically speaking, change is the law of nature; yesterday’s foe can become today’s friend. In International arena, relations among intrastate cannot be taken for granted. Ground realities and changing circumstances put states under tremendous pressure to protect the national interest by evolving states’ relations. Russia, named Soviet Union during Cold War was a hostile state towards Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and Turkey, now has become the best avenue for them to evolve and diversify their relations.
Source: pakobserver.net/russian-growing-adventurism/
-----
2018: Fear and Hope
By Khurram Minhas
January 19, 2018
THE beginning of New Year seems to be grim for Pakistani nation domestically and in external affairs. Price hike in petrol and Trump’s tweet are two examples of it. Apart from these two developments, one has to look at what will the year 2018 offer Pakistan in terms of security, economy, politics and international affairs. On security front, Pakistan’s security has been improving significantly since 2014. Operation Radd-ul-Fasaad is systematically achieving desired results. It is hope that Pakistani nation will witness several accomplishments against war on terrorism and successful completion of Operation Radd-ul-Fasaad in the year 2018. Pakistan Army robustly working on Afghanistan-Pakistan border for its proper management. It is hoped that the year 2018 will witness less border encroachments of terrorists from Afghanistan. Many key points of National Action Plan (NAP) such as FATA reforms, Afghan refugees’ repatriation, and revamping of criminal justice system could not be achieved in 2017. It is hoped that merger of FATA with KP will take place in 2018. However, the future of Afghan refugees’ repatriation and revamping of criminal justice system seems bleak in 2018. Government had announced National Internal Security Policy in 2014 and promised that it will also frame a comprehensive national security policy to cater internal and external challenges to Pakistan. However, lack of progress in this key area is also expected in the year 2018 due to ‘other priorities’ of incumbent government.
There are multiple fears linked with economy of Pakistan. Pakistan has insufficient resources for repayment of loans to various international agencies which are scheduled in 2018. The genie of circular debt will again knock at the doors of Pakistan in 2018. The country is relying heavily on remittances and donor’s aid while Pakistani exports are gradually declining. The government has not introduced any structural reforms to improve current economic situation. The current government had not broadened its tax base which was the main reason of budget deficit. 2018 will be election year, hence it is fear that Pakistan’s economy will remain under stringent environment as democratic governments often become generous during election year.
CPEC early harvest is expected to be completed in 2018. Better infrastructure, goods movement, and start of CPEC mid-term plan perhaps might improve the economic activities in the country. It is hope that this project will revitalize Pakistan’s economy. The 2017 has witnessed growing culture of entrepreneurships and online trade/shopping/transactions. It is hope that this growing culture of online trade/shopping/transactions and entrepreneurships will have brighter future in the year 2018. On political side, 2018 will be the year of democratic power transition. This will be second democratic power transition and theoretically, Pakistan will enter into a ‘consolidation phase’ of democracy after a successful second democratic power transition. It is hope that the democratic process will strengthened in the year 2018. Due to election year, more public participation in democratic process, closer relationship between masses and political elite is well expected in 2018. Political parties in different provinces will increase their pace to complete different infrastructure related projects to showcase their performance in general elections 2018. However, this political hustle and bustle will put major issues on back burner, such as economy and security. Moreover, the year 2018 will require political maturity from all political parties for a smooth democratic power transition. There is a fear that upcoming PAT’s protests and the bandwagon approach of PPP, PTI, and PSP with PAT may disturb this democratic power transition. There are many international instances, when such kind of agitation during election year had led to political instability and unfolded many undesired results for politicians.
On international front, the year 2018 will not be a smooth sailing for Pakistan. The mounting pressure of the US to do more will keep Pakistan-US relations under stress. Though, Presidential elections of Afghanistan and 7th Lok Sabha elections in India will take place in 2019, but the year 2018 will serve as election year in Afghanistan and India. Hence, President Ghani, CEO Abdullah Abdullah and others will use Pakistan as scapegoat for fragile security environment in Afghanistan. The aggressive posture of Indian politicians towards Pakistan will further increase. Hence, Pakistan will be witnessing stern external security environment, mainly in the second half of 2018. However, it is hope that Pakistan will keep managing with these hostile countries while broadening its base of friends in Central Asia, Middle East and Africa. It is also hoped that Pakistan-Russia relations will keep ascending in the year 2018. To conclude, the sun of 2018 will arise with numerous opportunities and challenges for Pakistan. The political will, national resolve, better priorities and rational choice might help Pakistan to not only cater all challenges but also avail opportunities, which would make Pakistan a prosperous and stable country.
Source: pakobserver.net/2018-fear-hope/
-----
Contradictions In Pak-US Ties
By Muhammad Usman
January 19, 2018
US National Security Advisor McMaster while warning Pakistan has bluntly remarked that our relationship with Pakistan no longer bear weight of contradictions. His self-assertion is basically laced with mantra of Do More. “President Trump is frustrated at Pakistan’s behaviour for providing safe havens to some militant groups and using banned outfits as an arm of its foreign policy. We have to really begin now to work together to stabilize Afghanistan and in a way that would be a huge benefit to Pakistan as well. Stop going after terrorist groups selectively, stop providing safe havens, support bases and other forms of support to their leadership”
It is true that a relationship of any kind cannot sustain long under weight of contradictions. In case of Pak US relationship, cause is not Pakistan. It is victim of its effect only. These originate squarely from US. More worryingly, there is seldom any gap or stop. Pakistan has suffered grievously at hands of relationship, burdened with numerous and enormous contradictions. It was end of its endurance and flexibility when it had to say no more Do More. We had enough. It was time for US and others to Do More. No fair-minded person could disregard or trivialize what Pakistan has done to make world safer from terrorism. Pakistan has gone even by extra lengths however, it cannot burn its extreme national interests to cinder. It is for US to address contradictions which have brought relationship so close to brink.
No Army accept defeat readily. It tries to find excuse. US has suffered defeat militarily in Afghanistan. Score of ungoverned spaces in length and breadth of Afghanistan is the ample proof. The blaming Pakistan for waging proxy war in Afghanistan could have two underlying purposes. One is scapegoating Pakistan for failure. Other is to prolong US’s stay in Afghanistan. US needs to accept reality and restrains from externalising blame. By independent estimates, half of Afghanistan is under control of Taliban. Majority of US led NATO forces has gone back home. There is no immediate and major threat to areas held by Taliban. A simple question arises; why should they have their bases in Pakistan and cut their leverage. It defies common sense that they are living and operating from sanctuaries inside Pakistan. Haqqani network is US’s opening gambit against Pakistan. It is a small group of 2 – 3 thousand militants. So much hullaballoo on their activities does not only sound absurd but equally appears an insult to US’s awesome military prowess.
A political settlement owned and led by Afghans is only way forward if aim is not other than peace in Afghanistan. Pakistan has ethnic and kinship ties with Afghan people. Their majority consider Afghan Taliban freedom fighters and US an intruder. Afghan Taliban are an indigenous force to be reckoned with. US wants to range Pakistan directly against them with ultimate aim of destroying reservoir of good will which Afghan people have for Pakistan because of brotherly ties and Pakistan’s great support in their struggle against Russian occupation and housing a large number of Afghan refugees. It is against extreme national interests of Pakistan. Pakistan could ill afford a hostile country on its western border too. Pakistan would not like to be a sandwich between its two long borders. A peaceful and stable Afghanistan is in best interest of Pakistan particularly, in context of CPEC. New US South Asia Policy whose centrepiece is Afghanistan is more likely to cause instability in region than bring peace and stability. Trump’s refusal to build Afghanistan is a real conundrum.. Afghanistan has no money for reconstruction, rehabilitation and raising effective law enforcement forces. Mess in Afghanistan is too big and severe. It cannot be put right by Afghan government alone; a government virtually hostage to foreign powers present there and confined to Kabul only. Trump is aversive to talk to Afghan Taliban until they are weakened by military action to negotiate peace deal under Kabul government’s terms and conditions. Ground realities suggests such methodology a mere illusion. It could only prolong agony, harden attitudes and pose serious hazards to peace.
A greater role to India in Afghanistan, being a regional leader, is totally inconceivable; a country plagued with constant defiance of UN Security resolutions, nuclearising South Asia and using terrorism as instrument of state policy. Crowning such country with a status of regional leader by the US is beyond comprehension. The countries emerge regional or global power on basis of constructive contributions for collective good. India has no such record. India is arch enemy of Pakistan. Whatever it is doing in Afghanistan, it is mainly in areas adjacent to Pakistan from where it could ditch Pakistan. In real sense, conferment of such role to India is tantamount to stabbing Pakistan at back and far beyond tolerance limits of Pakistan. These are the contradictions which are seriously impinging on Pak US relationship, not of those contradictions expressed by McMaster. Free world takes them a part of coercion and intimidation, unduly unleashed on Pakistan by Trump and his company.
Source: pakobserver.net/contradictions-pak-us-ties/
-----
Push Against Mush
By Irfan Husain
January 20, 2018
HERE we go again. Barely five months before the next general elections, have the opposition parties insisted on marching to the beat of a different drummer.
One would have thought that by now, they would be gearing up for a fiercely contested battle at the hustings, talking about their programmes, and discussing the allocation of tickets. However, judging from the fragmented rally in the centre of Lahore on Wednesday, our vanguard of democracy would much rather topple an elected government through agitation than by winning the next elections.
But the empty chairs at Charing Cross, Lahore’s hub and the venue of the rally, told their own story. Although there were several parties represented at the event, you wouldn’t have guessed it from the attendance. During the PPP leader’s speech, when a supporter tried to raise a pro-Zardari slogan, the lack of response deflated it like a punctured balloon.
However, Zardari had no skin in the game as he was just along for the ride. It must be a very long time since a PPP leader spoke before a largish crowd in Lahore. Virtually erased from Punjab’s political map, the PPP now relies on symbolic gestures to keep the flag flying. The fact that the PPP candidate in Lahore’s recent NA-120 constituency by-election won just 1,414 votes should concentrate minds in the party.
Another major player without a stake in the game is Dr Tahir ul Qadri, a cleric who flies to Pakistan from Canada once a year to stir the pot. While he attracts crowds with his histrionics, his loosely structured Pakistan Awami Tehreek is far from being an electoral force.
The empty chairs at Lahore’s Charing Cross told their own story.
But Imran Khan’s PTI certainly is. And yet, despite his personal popularity, Khan seems uncertain of his chances in the next elections. His party has been beaten by the ruling PML-N in several crucial by-elections. To do better, he needs to attract lots of Nawaz Sharif supporters, but by bringing the centre of Lahore to a grinding halt for almost two days, he hasn’t done his party any favours.
Khan has also cursed parliament for being ineffective. He would have sounded more convincing had his attendance record been better: according to a report published a year ago, he had been present for only six per cent of National Assembly sessions held until then.
Nawaz Sharif, another chronic absentee, did slightly better by turning up for 16pc of the sessions. Clearly, both party leaders view assemblies as platforms for wielding power, but not as institutions worthy of their time or respect.
Had Qadri been serious about seeking justice for 14 of his supporters shot dead by the police in Lahore’s Model Town over three years ago, he would have appeared before the court where he had lodged a complaint.
Clearly, it is far more exciting to demand justice at Charing Cross than undergoing cross-examination in a courtroom. Also, his court appearances probably clashed with his engagements in Canada. Justice Baqar Najafi’s report on the Model Town tragedy, while holding the Punjab government and police responsible, has named no official for ordering the firing. Clearly, there have been grave failures up and down the chain of command, but to think that forcing the resignations of Punjab chief minister Shahbaz Sharif and Law Minister Rana Sanaullah will bring closure and justice, Qadri & Co must be living in a parallel universe.
The truth is that invoking the Model Town killings, and conflating them with little Zainab’s gruesome rape and murder in Kasur, is a cynical ploy to keep the pressure on the Sharifs. And while I hold no brief for them, the ongoing campaign to destabilise the government at any cost is damaging a system that has already been battered by the military establishment, the judiciary and the media.
Politics and opportunism walk hand in hand all over the world. The opposition often demands resignations of sitting ministers, but doesn’t insist on the dissolution of assemblies. It is this contempt of democratic institutions, combined with relentless street agitation that has rendered day-to-day government virtually impossible.
Addressing an infantry unit of the Red Army, Lenin advised the soldiers thus: “When charging with the bayonet, if you meet mush, push. But if you meet steel, withdraw.” Imran Khan’s fired-up supporters have met nothing but mush, and have been constantly pushing. Other groups and parties, observing the PML-N’s craven behaviour, have also kicked the ruling party while it’s down.
And yet, it would appear that — contrary to the expectations of his rivals as well as our political engineers — Nawaz Sharif’s support has not crumbled. The reality is that love him or hate him, Shahbaz Sharif has done much to improve things in large parts of Punjab. No wonder Imran Khan is trying so hard to topple the PML-N before the elections.
Source: dawn.com/news/1384063/push-against-mush
-----
The Jilted Taj Mahal
By Murtaza Shibli
January 20, 2018
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu visit to the Taj Mahal this week was yet another indignity the legendary monument of eternal love had to endure.
Netanyahu and his wife Sara, donning a flagrantly scarlet dress, roamed about the classic white marbled beauty for over an hour. The couple posed for a photograph at the famous central Taj bench, renamed the Diana bench. It is where the lonely princess had posed for that famous photograph, drenched in melancholy as she stared into silent solitude. The forlorn snapshot announced to the whole world in subtle yet evident terms the state of her gilded yet loveless life. Ten months after that portrait, the royal couple formally announced their separation.
Netanyahu was received by Yogi Adityanath, the Hindu-priest-turned-CM of Uttar Pradesh (UP), province where the Taj Mahal is located in Agra. The Jewish prime minister flashed well-choreographed smiles as he described the Taj as an “unforgettable monument of love”, whose magnificence and beauty he deeply appreciated. It must have been pretty painful for Netanyahu to say that even if it was meant for public consumption, for it must be extremely rare for any Israeli politician to appreciate the beauty and splendour of a Muslim heritage site, something the Zionist state has been relentlessly and religiously destroying for the ever-expanding Israel project.
However, the visiting dignitary might have drawn some solace from the fact that the Hindu-right-wing BJP government, both at the national and provincial levels, has similar designs. Chief Minister Adityanath who hosted Netanyahu at the site has already expressed his abhorrence for the Taj Mahal as he previously said the icon did not ‘reflect the Indian culture’.
Spanned over centuries, the Taj Mahal has inspired generations of people from all races and continents. Since independence, not only has it remained central to India’s past splendour but also serves as the country’s mascot to attract foreigners, including almost all the visiting state dignitaries. However, since churning hate has become the right-wing Hindutva’s method to advance in electoral politics, the Taj Mahal has received its share of relentless loathing. The attacks became organised and vicious around the time Narendra Modi, known for his anti-Muslim rhetoric, took over as India’s prime minister in mid-2014.
Barely six months after his ascendance to power an Indian court admitted a lawsuit from a group of lawyers who claimed the Taj was a Hindu temple called Tejo Mahalaya, dedicated to Lord Shiva – one of the three important Hindu deities. The petition asked the court to allow the devotees to access the inner premises of the monument to perform ‘Darshan’ and ‘Aarti’, Hindu acts of worship. Harishankar Jain, the main petitioner, also sought a direction from the court to remove all alleged burials from under the building; as well as restrain worship by Muslims. In 2000, the Indian Supreme Court had quashed a similar petition that wanted it declared that the Taj Mahal was built by a Hindu king.
The attacks escalated after the BJP won over UP, the largest Indian province with a population over 20 million. This has given tremendous confidence to Hindu extremists, including the ruling party politicians, to target every symbol of Muslim faith and heritage without fear of any consequences. Not long ago, after Yogi Adityanath took over the reins in March last year, he launched a tirade against the Taj and tried to blemish its character. He claimed the monument was, “Made by the blood and sweat of Bharat Mata’s sons”, depicting a ghoulish image against its current veneer of love and affection. Soon after, his government presented its first budget for 2017-2018, and there was no mention of the building under the cultural heritage section.
In October last, the monument was dropped from the official tourism department’s booklet. The 32-page booklet, Tourism: Its High Potential, that was released by the state tourism minister, Rita Bahuguna Joshi, mentioned a number of Hindu and Buddhist religious places but missed out one of the world’s seven wonders. During a discussion on TV, one of the BJP’s spokespersons, Anila Singh, justified the removal on the basis that, “[The] days of all those people who have crushed the feelings of Hindus has come to an end. What Hindus want, we are going to do that.”
Despite its international appeal and a site that attracts more tourists than any other site in India, the government is choking its funding. This is despite the fact that more than 20 percent of all tourism revenue in UP generates from the Taj Mahal. Although there has been a steady drop in the number of visitors, 6.2 million visited the monument last year, maintaining the record for being the second best Unesco world heritage site.
But this does not seem enough. Sangeet Singh Som, a UP Assembly member and a well-known rabble-rouser while justifying the drop of the Taj from his government’s tourist guide described the white marbled building as, “A blot on Indian history and culture.” He even accused the Mughal King Shah Jahan, who commissioned the building to commemorate his dearest dead wife, Mumtaz Mahal, as a person who wanted to massacre Hindus. “If this is history, then it is very unfortunate… I can tell you with complete guarantee that history will be changed.”
Postscript: One of my most memorable visits to the Taj was with my family in the mid-80s. Inside the compound, I struck up a conversation with an elderly Kashmiri lady who was aghast at how ‘all sorts of people’ were defiling the ‘Muslim shrine’. For years, we would repeat her words and laugh. But now – as an unreasonable xenophobic discourse takes centre stage, amid the formation of a ‘new history’ conveniently cast in faith – the Taj may soon have to really surrender.
Source: thenews.com.pk/print/270602-the-jilted-taj-mahal
-----
URL: