Afzal Rahim

India vs. Pakistan: learning from the rivalry

2012-03-21T07:17:00.000+05:00

There couldn’t be any category where two competitors hate each other more than in the carbonated beverages world, with Coke and Pepsi perennially at war.

For over a century Coke and Pepsi have been at each other’s throats in a constant struggle for a bigger piece of the billion-dollar soda market. Along the way the companies have picked up a slew of loyalists and fans, adamant that their cola reigns supreme in the battle between the two cola giants.

The Coke-Pepsi battle is no holds barred, and involves intrigue, espionage, market-place battles, discounts, schemes, contests, advertising, etc, all targeted to get the consumer to choose one over the other.

Yet, even with the stakes so high, the two majors magically find agreement on one aspect: the price of the product.

Nowhere in the world is there a wide gap in the price of the two cola brands. If one raises the price, the other will take advantage of the higher market share – only for a short while. Then, it’ll follow the leader, and raise the price to bring parity with the rival, and begin enjoying the higher margin at a reduced market share. If one drops the price and sacrifices margin for share, the other will follow suit shortly.

In theory, all that one has to do to win the war is to keep dropping the price and keep eroding margins with increased market share as the benefit.

Why doesn’t this happen?

Because both agree that there is a limit to war – and that a price war will be one in which both Coke and Pepsi will be doomed.

So is the case with the India and Pakistan. They compete for market share, staring eyeball to eyeball every day in the battle for more Nuclear Weapons, for power, arrogance and self centered politics. Millions of people falling the poverty line each year in the two countries and more budgets are being allocated to Defense spending

And if one country promises ‘x’ increase in the Defense budget, the other introduces ‘y’, a comparable equivalent.

This might seem to be a healthy competition for the time being, as long as both the countries can continue to survive.

Right now, what they’re doing is the equivalent of a mad spending on stocking more and more Nuclear Bombs. By their willingness to pay an uneconomical and unviable price to acquire voters, they’re reaching a stage where market share is everything — and a scenario where both could be doomed as the business, the business of politics, will become unviable to them.

If they were to learn from the Cola majors, they need to agree that there are some stances and decisions which they ought not to fight over. This needs to be the defined bottom-line in their continuing war against each other – they should not sink below this level as they seem to be close to doing so till this day.

Carry on, and both are doomed.

The writing is already on the wall – this war is costing them both dearly.

From MFN to Most Favorite Friend (MFF)

2012-02-23T22:51:00.000+05:00

Get Follow Me Buttons

Progress in the peace process between Pakistan and India is measured in inches, not yards. By that metric, the decision by the two countries to move to a more liberal visa regime should be seen as a considerable step forward. . The agreement will make it easier for businessmen to move across the border and will also grant banks from Pakistan and India permission to operate in each other’s countries. In the ultimate analysis, it would change and herald a new era of more open, transparent and meaningful engagement in a number of sectors. It could change the politics of South Asia.

During his recently concluded visit to Pakistan, Indian Commerce Minister Anand Sharma held talks with his Pakistani counterpart Makhdoom Amin Fahim (15th February, 2012 – Wednesday) and signed three trade pacts and laid the groundwork for not only opening more land trade routes, but also bank branches in each other’s countries for the first time since their creation. Pakistan’s Cabinet on Tuesday approved the signing of the three agreements but deferred a decision on switching over from a positive list of 1,945 tradable items, to a negative list of 636 items barred from trading, after some stakeholders expressed reservations. Pakistan & India has agreed to move from a positive list to a small negative list by the end of February. The negative list is to be phased out gradually and the timing for that will be announced by the end of February. The complete phase-out that will automatically lead to full normalisation of trade relations, commonly known as the most-favoured nation (MFN) status.

The economic calculus of formal Indo-Pak trade is trivial, at least for India. With total formal Indo-Pak trade of around $2 billion, this translates into 0.27% of India’s foreign trade basket. For Pakistan, it means more, with around 3% of its external trade. In comparison, Pakistan transacts 10.83% of its international trade with China, 10.65% with UAE, 8.41% with USA and 7.26% with Saudi Arabia. Very few people realise that after the US, Afghanistan has become Pakistan’s most favorite destination, which accounts for close to 10% of our exports, whereas the US accounts for 16%. With Pak-USA diplomatic terms at far from their best and with Afghanistan now always in an aggressive tone towards Pakistan, we are fast losing our business partners. The last decade has pushed India to the centre of the world stage because of impressive economic progress, market size and sustained democracy. Its huge military has enhanced its appeal to global interests. Its tourism and film industries further reinforced its international image.

It is ironic that our foreign policy and trade trends seem to be working at odds. The notion that India will be the main beneficiary, while Pakistan, with its smaller economy, will lose out is also misplaced. Simple economics and history suggests that trade with reduced barriers is a ‘win-win’ situation for both sides. Smaller economies, in fact, have benefitted greatly. Take the case of Mexico, which exports more than quadrupled after the North American Free Trade Agreement went into effect in 1994. This was good not only for Mexico’s producers but also its consumers. They had a greater variety of goods to choose from at reduced prices because the influx of imports increased competition.

More than one-fifth of humanity cannot be in bondage indefinitely because some people would prefer to prolong the agony. One of the most remarkable developments of the 20th century has been the capacity of nations to bolster economic ties even though they remain sharply divided on many vital issues. The people and government of Pakistan, need to take a cool look at the progress made by some of the most successful countries during the last fifty years. It is high time we realised that we need to learn from what they did to achieve progress and not by yielding to what the West has been telling us to do with our country and people. There are many major international alliances based on simple common sense and the basic principal that close relations and cooperation among neighbouring countries must be the foundation for formulating foreign and economic policies. The European Union is a key example. It was formed by the devastated and divided countries of Europe after World War II as an integrated body of 27 nations, including the reunited Germany, with a single currency and free movement of goods and people across borders.

There is no remedy better than people-to-people contacts to remove mutual suspicion and hatred between Pakistanis and Indians. Helping students, youth, artists and sportsmen to travel to each other’s countries would generate goodwill and bring the two nations closer. Simplifying the cumbersome visa process for businessman shows that both countries were not simply indulging in cheap rhetoric but have realised the mutual benefits of cross-border trade. My dream is of free trade for the entire South Asian region. One day we should be able to have an economic union along the lines of Europe. We can either look at the glass as half full or half empty. I see it as half full.

Get Follow Me Buttons

Kabuli Pulao

2012-02-23T22:38:00.000+05:00

Qabili Palau

Ingredients

3 cups basmati rice
1 Kg Sheep's boneless meat
2 large onions, peeled and quartered
½ c plus 2 tbsp. olive oil or vegetable oil, divided
5 tsp. salt
3 large carrots, peeled
1 cup black raisins
½ cup slivered almonds
3 tbsp. sugar
¾ cup water
2 tsp. ground cumin
1 ½ tsp. ground cardamom
12 cups water

Preparation Method 1:

Immerse rice in a bowl of water and drain in a colander. Repeat this step 3 times.

Wash the meat. Set aside.

Chop the onions. Don't puree the onions. You can do this by hand if you prefer.

Choose a sauté pan that is at least a couple inches deep and large enough to fit all the chicken. Pour ½ cup of the oil in the pan and sauté the onions over high heat, stirring quickly, until brown (5-10 minutes). Don't burn them. Add the meat to the pan and sprinkle with 3 tsp. of the salt. Cook the meat over medium-high heat for 20 minutes, turning from time to time so all sides turn golden brown. The onion will start to caramelize and turn into a thick sauce. Continue stirring to keep the meat from burning.

While the meat is cooking, cut the carrots into long matchsticks, about 4 inches long and 1/8-inch thick. Make sure that they are not too thin. In a large frying pan add ¾ cups of water and bring to a boil, add the carrots and cook until tender and a deep orange hue, 5 to 7 minutes. Keep a close eye on this to make sure you do not overcook them. Once the carrots are done, drain any leftover liquid out of the pan. Add the remaining 2 tbsp of oil, raisins, almonds and sugar to the carrots. Stir quickly over medium-high heat and keep stirring for about 3 minutes. The raisins will look plump; the carrots will take on a nice sweet flavor. Remove from heat and package the carrots into a sealed aluminum foil pouch about the size of a small paperback novel.

Remove the meat pieces from the broth and set aside. Stir the cumin, cardamom and black pepper into the broth. Continue to cook on low for 5 minutes to allow it to thicken.

Meanwhile, measure 12 cups of water and the remaining 2 tsp. of salt into a large Dutch oven or pot with a fitted lid. Bring it to a boil. Add the rice to the water and boil until it is al dente (nearly cooked, though still slightly crunchy). This will take just a few minutes depending on the rice you use. You will have to taste it to check for doneness. Do not overcook it.

Immediately strain the rice through a colander. Put the rice back into its cooking pot and add the broth. Mix well. Arrange meat on top of the rice. Set the aluminum package of carrots on top of the rice. This will keep the carrots warm and deepen the flavors without mixing with the rice yet.

Bake the rice for 15 minutes in 500 degrees then drop the temperature down to 250 degrees. Cook for another 20 minutes. Sprinkle the carrots, raisins, and almonds on the rice. Serve with a simple salad and Yougurt Raita.

Serves 6-8

Preparation Method 2:

Brown 1 medium diced onion in oil. Fry until the onion is fairly dark. Add 1 lb lamb cut into 1"-2" cubes and brown lightly.

Add 2 cups of water, 1 tsp. Salt and 1 to 1 ½ tsp each (cinnamon, ground cumin and ground cardamom) Cover and simmer until meat is tender, about an hour.
Remove meat from the juice and set juice aside. Cut 3 carrots into match stick size pieces. Saute carrots and 1 tsp sugar in about 1/4 cup of oil. Cook until they are lightly browned. Remove from oil Add 1 cup of raisins to the oil and cook until they swell up.

Boil the meat juice and add 2 cups basmati (very long grained) rice, 1 ½ tsp salt and enough boiling water to come 2 inches over the rice. Cook until the water is absorbed and the rice is tender--but NOT mushy.

Mix the meat, carrots, raisins and rice together. Place in a large oven-proof casserole, cover and bake at 300 degrees for about a half hour--or up to an hour.

To serve--place on platter, making sure the carrots and raisins show on top.

Friendship with China after Abbotabad Incident

2011-05-18T00:10:00.008+05:00

The warmth was the same as that always observed in the past, Chinese premier Wen Jiabao met Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gilani in Beijing on May 18. At a time when Pakistan faces threats to its security and economy and is under increasing pressure from the US, the expression of solidarity from China, the country’s time tested friend and neighbour, is highly reassuring. Chinese prime minister asked the US to respect Pakistan’s sovereignty. Considering that no other country has come out so categorically in support of Islamabad on what has turned out to be a demeaning episode for Pakistan, the Chinese prime minister’s remarks, during the course of his Pakistani counterpart’s visit, must be a source of satisfaction for the people of Pakistan. China’s support to Pakistan at this time is welcome.

We share a border, common interests and are developing a relationship based on mutuality. Besides trade there is a strategic element to our partnership, and the importance of Beijing’s statement that ‘an attack on Pakistan is an attack on China’ carries significant importance. Chinese prime minister’s assurances that changes in international politics will not affect Beijing’s relations with Islamabad, the commitment to help strengthen this country’s defence capability and the decision to supply 50 Thunder jets is a matter of satisfaction for the government.

Pakistan-China relation needs to be developed further from their current level simply because their territorial contiguity adds new logistic dimension. China has built the Karakoram Highway and Gwadar Port is ready. There has been collaboration in the energy sector which bore fruit a week ago with the commissioning of a nuclear power plant at Chashma in central Punjab and a contract with the Chinese to construct two more. As fixes go it is neither quick nor cheap – but it is durable and will provide a long-term solution to part of our power problem.

In its transactional relationship with America, Pakistan does not have many choices, but with China it has a range of choices, as do the Chinese with it. And Pakistan is right to push forwards with broadening a relationship which in the long-term will be of greater benefit. In Pakistan, politicians have been calling for relying more on China. There is a need not only to raise the level of trade but also to ensure that Pakistan is able to export at least as much as it imports.

Political maneuvering "Higher Education"

2011-03-25T13:30:00.012+05:00

Institution building is an arduous task, and it requires vision, strategy, resources and leadership. It takes consistent efforts, teamwork and perseverance to realise an institution’s mission. There are many institutions, some known and widely publicised and some not so known and doing good work quietly, that we have built in different fields of national life. The Higher Education Commission (HEC) is one of the institutions that we can be very proud of.

There is little doubt in my mind that the HEC was a net positive investment for Pakistan’s educational development. The news of the HEC’s ‘devolution’ under the 18th Amendment was quite disconcerting because this decision has been made with little forethought and has all the markings of dubious political motives. Higher education is a national priority issue because of its importance in development across the board. We cannot afford to have ‘devolution’ in this regard because higher education deserves to be a national ‘equaliser’. The minimum quality requirements and the numbers of engineers, scientists, doctors, economists and social scientists needed for nation-building have to be determined through careful central planning regarding human resource requirements in various sectors. A multiplicity of standards and regulations would be disastrous.

Under the leadership of world-renowned chemist and Fellow of the Royal Society Dr Attaur Rahman, the HEC raised the international stature of Pakistani universities and gave ample opportunities for scholarships for Pakistani students and faculty. It has played a key role in expanding the national network of public universities and establishing standards for higher education. Higher education in public and private sectors has really taken off well through the HEC, which at this stage needs to be consistent with an eye on quality. The number of scholarships to pursue higher studies in Pakistan and abroad through a transparent and open merit system as well as grants for fellowship, scientific research and conferences. The scale of what has been and is currently being done in these fields is unparalleled in the history of our country. Pakistan made remarkable progress during 2001-2008 in higher education. There was a 600 per cent increase in scientific publications in international journals and a 1,000 per cent increase in citations in this period. Today, several of our universities are ranked among the top 500.

All good institutions, and even the best ones, need evaluation, reform and constant restructuring to improve. The HEC cannot be an exception to this natural rule of development. Most of the critique over the years has come from two types of commentators. One is from the usual cynic brigade that sees no good happening in Pakistan, anywhere or by anyone except for what they do — spread pessimism and read our progress as accidental or inadequate. Others have set standards comparable to the best in international academia. Yes, we must raise our standards as high as possible but we must never loosen our grasp of the realities and constraints within which we function. No doubt when large quantities of funds are involved, there are always some detractors about the competing uses of such funds.Some critics of the HEC contended that the money should be used for primary education instead. Of course, primary education is important, but for long-term development higher education is also necessary. There needs to be simultaneous investment in both.

Today, the issue is very different; it is not of reform and restructuring of the HEC but of its disinvestment and disbanding. The reason why this is being done are shrouded in legality but has either political motivation or lack appropriate appreciation of what the HEC has accomplished or how, given its strengths and experience, it can contribute to the advancement of higher education in the country. Foreign scholarships, educational standards and evaluation of degrees and university performance are absolutely compatible with the letter and spirit of the 18th Amendment. Disintegration of the HEC will empower no one; do no good, save nothing. Higher education must not fall prey to petty political bickering.

Justice in haste is... Justice in waste!

2011-03-17T15:12:00.033+05:00

Our real masters — the Americans — must be very pleased with the work of their puppets in Pakistan. However, there are serious apprehensions that this latest shame earned for Pakistan would unleash a new wave of unrest in the country.

The shambolic issuance of visas to Americans without any sort of background clearance was an invitation to abuse the system – which the Americans duly did. To prevent a repeat occurrence, the overall mechanism or system under which agents similar to Raymond Davis operate inside Pakistan may need to be re-examined and perhaps the standard operating procedure overhauled so that such an incident does not happen again. It is worth reminding that usually such deployments are done with the full knowledge of the relevant ministry and intelligence agencies of the host country and it would be fair to assume that this happened in Mr Davis’s case.

Davis was a criminal of national security whose name was placed on the Exit Control List but the federal government and Punjab government compromised on national security. He was allowed to fly abroad without any problem. The news was broken to the media only after Raymond had left the soil of Pakistan. We never thought that we would be sold in this manner and so cheaply. We knew well that Nawaz Sharif had once sold Aimal Kansi to the Americans, Benazir Bhutto handed over Yousaf Ramzi to US and the ISI and Pakistan Army under Musharraf presented hundreds of Pakistanis and other nationals including the daughter of Pakistan Dr Aafia Siddiqui to US but we mistakenly thought that it might not be possible for all of them now because of the independent media and the judiciary. But they did it again to Pakistan and did it so shamelessly.

Sources said Shahbaz Sharif instructed Punjab’s Law Minister Rana Sanaullah not to officially inform the federal interior ministry about the names of four Americans who were revealed by Raymond Davis on the first day of investigation, so they could not be put on the Exit Control List and thus could leave Pakistan easily. Rana Sanaullah did the same and later he had to admit that he had made a mistake. According to reports, the freed CIA contractor was whisked away to Kabul within hours in a special US government aircraft, which had been parked at the Lahore Airport since Tuesday evening. In another mystifying twist, a report in the US media has claimed within hours that the blood money of about US$2.3m was actually paid out by the Pakistan government on the understanding that the US would ‘reimburse the amount later at an opportune moment’.

Interestingly, the court did not hear arguments of lawyers from any side and quickly framed charges against him and passed the order. After the judge concluded proceedings of the jail trial, the representatives of US embassy and consulate, and members of victims’ family along with their new counsels left the Kot Lakhpat Jail in a convoy of around six vehicles with black tainted windows.

The Raymond Davis case was not a mere case of Diyat but “Fasad-fil-Arz” (unrest on earth) and terrorism but the federal and provincial governments surrendered the dignity of the nation by not sustaining the pressures of the Americans. Diyat should have come at very later stage because killing was a smaller crime than spying and spreading distress in the country. In view of an earlier court judgment Islamic law of Diyat is not applicable in the offences that fall under the expression of “Fasad-fil-Arz”. Additionally, Davis involvement in spying business was a crime against state, this point was altogether ignored by the federal and provincial governments. Although, it is for the religious scholars and jurists to ponder if Raymond’s case falls in the category of “Fasad-fil-Arz” or it was a routine “murder” invoking the provision of Diyat, this very aspect was not discussed by the Lahore sessions court. The Punjab prosecution also did not raise this aspect of this strange outcome of the Raymond case.

There has not been any clear statement from the government as to whether or not Davis had diplomatic immunity; and the ambiguity that now hangs in the air leaves the door open for similar opaque arrangements to that which allowed him in here in the first place. Then there is sovereignty. Raft of questions remains unanswered.

First, who was responsible for the release?
Second, what were the concessions made on both sides of the table to facilitate the release?
Is our sovereignty so compromised that it is within the rules of engagement for CIA stringers such as Davis that they are permitted to carry and discharge weapons in the street?
To go equipped with the impedimenta of espionage unchallenged?

When the state did not become a party to other allegations against Raymond then who else could become a custodian of the country’s interests. It is worth pointing out that given Pakistan’s dependence on the US, in particular for military aid, it was only a matter of time that Davis would have been released. Federal and provincial governments are in debt of foreign loans so they could not resist the international pressure in an important case in which the government should have taken a stand. Had this incident happened between, say, China and America or even India and America, the result may have been different. Unfortunately, you don’t bite the hand that feeds you !

Why I am not leaving Pakistan?

2011-03-14T00:00:00.012+05:00

I remember watching “George ka Pakistan” and enjoying it. Obviously, as a foreigner residing in Pakistan, I could empathise with much of his experience and I liked the fact that his Urdu (at that stage) was worse than mine.

So it was with some sadness and, to be honest, a little anger, that I read George’s farewell to a country that had granted him citizenship for no other reason than that he came across as a decent guy (I believe he probably is). Deluded Pakistan might be, but I think George’s delusions are a bigger factor here. Or maybe mine are.

I must be the only person in this country who doesn’t believe Pakistan is on the brink of collapse; civil war; destruction; uncivil war; or total annihilation (pick your preferred noun). I don’t have the requisite ethos to expect people to believe me. I am neither a journalist nor a professional analyst; neither an Ivy League nor an Oxbridge graduate.

However, I have been following international news for a while now and I continue to find it both concerning and reassuring that the news has not changed much in that time. Gradual movements have occurred but the drama and upheaval predicted by headlines each day rarely has.

Take five minutes to go to Google archives, select any year from 1960–2011, and search Pakistan. The pages start looking like carbon copies of each other. “Oh my, Pakistan and India are threatening war again.” “Did you know that women in Pakistan are dreadfully treated — says here, this woman was buried alive.”

I am not intending to undermine the seriousness of Pakistan’s problems. Many suffer unnecessarily; corruption is rife and many of the movers and shakers of the place seem childishly selfish and short-sighted. Welcome to development in the 21st century — it’s a bummer.

However, the overall history of Pakistan suggests an ability to survive the difficulties of nation building and a slow and steady improvement of these problems. Furthermore, this country has 180 million people, most of whom are completely occupied with ensuring they earn enough income to cover their monthly expenses. These people get up every morning and go into fields, factories, houses, offices, hospitals and schools because it is the most certain option they have of getting that income. Each year, a greater percentage of people manage on that income, justifying that loyalty. Is it perfect? — hell no. Is it better than anarchy? — hell yes!

As regards the state of the state and civil institutions, I can understand the dismay and concern. There appear to be few politicians and political parties that do not swing for immediate gain, and ethics seem to exist only as a word. But creating functioning and independent civil institutions, and a populace that knows how to use them, is the longest and hardest part of creating a nation.

I live as part of Pakistan’s least vulnerable social class and am untouched by a majority of Pakistan’s fundamental problems. However, if I listen to my neighbour and read English papers, I am at a high risk of being taken out by a terrorist and/or political violence. (Statistically, and from personal experience, I am far more likely to be taken out by a Pakistani driver.) Without too much discipline required on my behalf, I stay away from military/police institutions and structures; I don’t participate in religious processions; and, aside from the tourist trail, I don’t visit mosques. Maybe I could write the US government a survivor’s guide for Pakistan.

Some days I hate this country. I mutter prejudicial comments and decide that the problems of Pakistan can be summed up in the stupidity of its drivers; I glare at shop assistants and make sarcastic comments I know they can’t understand. Some days I’m not a good person. But I never go so far as to claim I want to leave.

While I realise my situation differs dramatically from most Pakistanis, it does not, so much, from George’s. Even after reading his farewell, parts 1 and 2, I couldn’t understand what it was George expected from a nation — any nation. Complete security? Zero poverty? Political maturity? Constant affirmation of personal importance? Change countries if you need to, I used to regularly, but realise you do it for personal reasons and not because the country has failed you.

Tweet
Special thanks to Caitlin Malik

The writer is an Australian national married to a Pakistani and teaches in a school.

Pakhtun culture diminishing

2011-02-23T17:54:00.008+05:00

Growing incidence of terrorism and busy life of the modern age has taken its toll on Pakhtun culture, local customs and tradition not only in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa but also in the tribal areas.

The Pakhtuns’ celebration of a joyous moment in a traditional way like Attan, a traditional Pakhtun dance, is also becoming extinct in Pakhtun-populated areas. Attan is a form of dance that originated in the Pakhtun regions of Afghanistan and Pakistan. Performed to the drumbeat, the dance begins slowly but picks up momentum and continues for two or three hours without a break except for changes in tempo or in song. Attan is performed usually with a Dhol, which is a double-headed barrel drum that has a deep and low resonance sound. Other instruments can include a single-barrel Dhol, Tablas, the 18-string Rubab, flute, etc.

The technique behind the Attan has changed much over the centuries, but its base has not changed. It is a circular dance ranging from two to over a hundred people, and the performers will follow each other going round in a circle to the drumbeat. In Afghanistan, each valley has its own unique style. There are many different kinds of Attan in Afghanistan including Kabuli, Wardaki, Logari, Khosti/Paktia, Herati, Kochyano, Khattak, Pashayi (played with Surnai flute) and Nuristani.

Chitral, Kohistan, Dir and tribal areas have their own customs and traditional dances. But ‘Da Hujray Majlis’ where the people sing songs with Rubab, Mangay and traditional Tappas are becoming less common.

Suqra was another custom, where the youth usually slaughtered animal and spent most of the time in singing local songs with traditional instruments. It too is vanishing. The presence of local Taliban and inefficiency of civil and political administration is stated to be the main reason for the end of Suqra, which was performed in the winter, particularly in the hilly areas.

There was also a famous local tradition of Gooda-Gooday where a young man wore the dress of the opposite sex and moved with another youth usually wearing a coat.

Flanked by their companions, the youth usually carried an empty pumpkin, with artificial eyes and nose made of flour on their head and collected donation including wheat, flour and sometimes coins. The youngsters used to sell the collected items in bazaars and arranged Teelech.

They then bought hens, rice or Sooji (a local delicacy) to prepare delicious meals for the night and Halwa. On such occasions, Attan was also performed. This was common in the past in parts of Swat and Dir and almost all the Pakhtun areas along the Pak-Afghan border and also in Kunar, Nuristan, Laghman and Nangrahar provinces of Afghanistan.

The youngsters usually sang songs while moving with Gooday in the village streets and none among the elders objected to it. The people usually offered the youths money to enable them replenish their stock of wheat, Gur and flour. In the past, special Hujra Majlis was sometimes organised in honour of guests.

Get Follow Me Buttons

Talking PEACE !

2011-02-23T17:41:00.008+05:00

Pakistan-India peace talks have become a cyclic process: tension followed by running around to initiate talks, then resumption of talks, then arriving at an agreement that we are about to have a breakthrough in talks, but then a terrorist attack to subvert all that happened in the past. We have witnessed this cycle at least twice in the recent past. First, Atal Behari Vajpayee’s famous visit to Pakistan, followed by the signing of the Lahore declaration, which was then followed by the Kargil crisis. Later, after the two neighbours scared the world blue with a possible eruption of a nuclear war and stood, ‘eyeball-to-eyeball’ for eight long months, the leadership agreed to talk about talks. Then we saw that talks progressed to the extent that Pervez Musharraf pulled out a possible resolution to the Kashmir issue out of his hat. However, the direction of the ‘winds of change’ was turned around very soon after the Mumbai attacks. The massive vilification campaigns by the media that followed the incident completely turned the tables.

An entire year has passed since the Manmohan Singh government decided it was time to find a way to break the dialogue deadlock and kick-start the process of engagement with Pakistan. Both India and Pakistan remain embroiled in a confrontational engagement, even as the world around marches along, benefiting from an era of prolonged global peace. The 2008 terrorist bombing of Mumbai must not forever shadow the bilateral equation. Two years are enough to lick the wounds and assuage public feelings of outrage; after that, the business of running the two neighbouring states must be taken in hand. There are significant changes in the conflict dynamics of both India and Pakistan that must push both to review their stance towards each other. The centrality that drives the mindset on both sides is the enemy status that each side maintains of the other. Just as the Pakistani military remains India-centric, the Indian military, too, retains Pakistan as the prime threat.

Preconditioning dialogue means dooming it beforehand. It is time to get back to the drawing boards and give peace a chance. The Thimphu spirit just might be it. Talks are good. Sustain those by making them “uninterrupted and uninterruptible”. Preconditioning dialogue means dooming it beforehand. It is time to get back to the drawing boards and give peace a chance. The Thimphu spirit just might be it. Talks are good!

Get Follow Me Buttons

Revolution in Pakistan?

2011-01-25T11:32:00.004+05:00

The last week has seen truly inspirational footage of impassioned Egyptians battling valiantly for an end to authoritarianism. All it took was for a lone fruit seller to set himself on fire in Tunisia to set off a chain of events that might just see the largest collection of autocracies. First Tunisia, and now Egypt and Yemen have erupted in protest against their governments, leaving many a Middle Eastern dictator quaking in their shoes.You know things are out of control when the Middle East starts protesting dictatorship.

Today, airlines from all over the world are sending chartered flights to Cairo to bring their citizens back home. Over the last week, scores of tourists have seen their holiday take an unexpected turn. Massive street protests demanding the ouster of President Hosni Mubarak (who has now ruled Egypt as a single-option kleptocrat for the last 31 years) have paralysed day to day activity in the Egyptian capital. Efforts by the Egyptian military to dissipate protests have largely been unsuccessful despite the use of bullets, tear gas, and tanks. The people of Egypt are clearly enraged; they hold their president responsible for unemployment, food inflation, and poverty. Egyptians seem to have been roused from complacence. They seem to have realised ‘If not us then who? If not now then when?’

Most Pakistanis would love to be that nation, hoping that Tunisia’s revolutionary ripples, already rocking Egypt and nudging Yemen, will reach Pakistan too. Enduring raging inflation, malignant corruption, dilapidated public services, an ultra-incompetent, dishonest government and an extra-insincere opposition, ineffectual judicial remedies, brutal feudal lords and tribal chiefs, lynch mobs, daily drone and terrorist attacks, assemblies of cheats, tax evaders and fake degree holders, surely Pakistan is ripe for revolution? Sadly not!

The ingredients for revolution are simply not in place. Pakistan has sharp religious divide, low levels of literacy and a general feeling of apathy and defeatism in the population and additional factors which militate against a revolution: deep and multiple ethnic, linguistic, tribal and sectarian fault lines; a paucity of alternative intellectual narratives, radical leaders or strong unions; and an elected government and freedom of speech. Past experience suggests that it is likely that the events in Arab countries will leave Pakistan unchanged.Protests only become spontaneous after a certain critical mass is reached. Before that, they are contrived.

Revolutionary forces require a moral impetus that illegitimate dictatorship provides but elected government does not. The middle class is distraught by unemployment, inflation and lack of equal opportunity but does not have critical mass. Revolutions require a unifying rationale and the only ideology which has the potential to transcend these divisions is Islam. Yet that, too, requires a leadership which commands respect and a mass following. Given the number of religious parties and their intolerance of each other’s beliefs, that unifying leadership is missing.The middle class is distraught by unemployment, inflation and lack of equal opportunity but does not have critical mass. Revolutions require a unifying rationale and the only ideology which has the potential to transcend these divisions is Islam. Yet that, too, requires a leadership which commands respect and a mass following. Given the number of religious parties and their intolerance of each other’s beliefs, that unifying leadership is missing.

Like Egypt, Tunisia was ruled by a dictator who had been in power for nearly 25 years. Years of imbalances had resulted in growing inequality as well as rampant joblessness, particularly among the educated youth. Tunisia, in 2011, had many similar factors at play. President Ben Ali was a notoriously corrupt, textbook dictator ensconced for 23 years. He enacted strict control and censorship across the media, allowing only sham elections in which he invariably bagged up to 90 per cent of the votes. Opposition parties were stifled and people were fearful of voicing criticism of the government.

Deprived of these outlets for expression, resentment ignited when the self-immolation of a young, unemployed university graduate, whose fruit stall was confiscated because he had no licence, set ablaze the frustrations of the middle class. Trade unions joined in the massive street protests. Tunisia’s revolution was, like Iran, shored by its high literacy rate and the absence of ethnic and sectarian divisions.

In the absence of any efforts to create similar options in Pakistan, disgruntled Pakistanis are likely to remain just that. However this latest chapter in the history of the Middle East plays out, the world will have seen that democratic dissent in Muslim-majority countries is not dead. So let’s not lose hope just yet.Those in Pakistan getting too readily aroused about the possibility of a revolution here need to be reminded that we already had ours. We just recently removed our dictator Mr. Pervez Musharraf !

Get Follow Me Buttons

Hope for Peace अमन की आशा

2011-01-23T17:15:00.003+05:00

Let people meet ! Milne Do

When the first restrictions on movement of people between West Pakistan and India were imposed on July 14, 1948, it was a shock to people in the region. These restrictions were imposed by the Indian government in the form of an emergency permit system when north Indian Muslim refugees, who had fled their homes in the midst of Partition's violence, began to return to their ancestral homes. The Indian government was willing to accept Hindu and Sikh refugees from Pakistan, but did not want north Indian Muslim refugees to return to India and claim Indian citizenship. By September 1948, the Pakistani government had imposed a parallel permit system, in large part to prevent Muslims in India from coming to West Pakistan. The excruciating passport and visa system for Indian and Pakistani passport holders - visas issued only for specific cities and requiring invitations, endorsements and police reporting - are remnants of the permit system.

History abounds with examples of how people-to-people contacts have helped pave the way for peaceful relations when traditional diplomacy failed. Take the United States’ relationship with China or Japan. Business and economics forced the former enemies to change their posture towards each other. It paved the way for more people-to-people interaction, and a progressively amicable relationship. This, despite being at the opposite ends of the globe.

The lessons of history are clear: it is only when two hostile countries develop an economic stake in each other that peace becomes an imperative and war a non-option. France and Germany provide an excellent example of how people-to-people contact and the media can play a positive and constructive role, and also bring the people of two former enemy countries closer together.

In South Asia too, there is potential for people-to-people contacts at every level, from academia to economics, from culture to sport, general tourism, medical tourism and religious tourism. This is a good way to dispel the mutual distrust by including students from premier institutions interact with one other on exchange programs. Public money should be spent on institutional youth exchanges: Each government puts in 50 % of the cost required to place youth (young professionals, say under 35 years of age) in various sectors in each other's country - doctors, lawyers, graduate students. This is a fantastic way to change mindsets and make people more accepting of each other.

We can't remain hostage to those differences forever. Let people meet, let families reunite, let trade and tourism flourish. The need is to push for facilitating cross border movement rather than placing hurdles in the path as an unstated state policy. Easing these restrictions would help diffuse tensions, reduce miscommunication and negate the stereotypes that have developed in our minds against each other.

There are powerful interests in the establishments on both sides who don't want peace - or who, at the very least, want to push their own agendas that have no space for the political constraints of the other side. In the context of India-Pakistan relations -- more they talk, the less they'll bite. And the more they talk, the closer they can get to understanding each other's perceptions and moving closer to taking steps that the other side would welcome. This is not to endorse 'talking just for the sake of talking' but to underline the point that, given the lengthy periods in which there has been no dialogue, any contact is better than none. Truly said "Peace is not an event but a process".

It is time to move towards a sustained, consistent and open-minded communication. The bottom line is that there is no alternative to dialogue. And that while the governments sort out their political differences, they should at least not let the people suffer - ease visa restrictions, let people meet, allow trade (yes, even transit trade), remove non-tariff barriers. In short, behave like civilised neighbours in the 21st century. India and Pakistan cannot be adversaries forever.

Half the world's poverty-stricken people are concentrated in South Asia. If we cooperate, we will together create a stronger front against poverty, illiteracy, terrorism and also contribute to improving the lives of millions of our citizens. We were one once. We may not be one again. But there can be peace and harmony between us. Let us make peace and fight poverty together - for us and our children and our coming generations.

Here's the Aman Ki Asha anthem!

Dikhayi dete hain duur tak ab bhi saaye koi

Magar bulaane se waqt lautey na aaye koi

Chalo na phir se bichhayein dariyaan bajayein dholak

Lagake mehendi sureeley tappe sunayein koi

Patang udayein chhatton pe chadh ke muhalley waaley

Falak to saanjha hai us mein penche ladayein koi

Utho kabaddi kabbadi khelenge sahardon par

Jo aye abke to laut kar phir na jaye koi

Nazar mein rehtey ho jab tum nazar nahin aatey

Yeh sur milaatey hain jab tum idhar nahin aatey

Nazar mein rehtey ho jab tum nazar nahin aatey

Yeh sur bulaatey hain jab tum idhar nahin aatey

Get Follow Me Buttons

Happy Peaceful New Year Pakistan & India

2011-01-05T15:22:00.019+05:00

A year of tentative beginnings, a year of rediscovery and a year of hope that promises to pave the way for a sustained environment of collaborative success - the Aman ki Asha initiative has had a successful year-long journey and made many of us look forward to a better future as the next milestones in this journey becomes visible. It has been my privilege to be a part of Aman ki Asha campaign.

On January 3rd, 2010 when I read about the Aman ki Asha quest for peace between India and Pakistan I felt that there was new hope for our world. The authors of this initiative GEO TV & Times of India are to be congratulated for their courage and vision. Unless we learn to appreciate our profound interdependence, we will fail the test of our time. The authors of the Aman Ki Asha initiative have understood that it is no use waiting for the politicians and leaders to act; ordinary men, women and children must make their wishes known. History also shows that the dedicated action of just a few individuals, often decried by their contemporaries as impractical dreamers, can make all the difference. In a world that seems so often to be spinning out of control, we need such action now.

Different surveys in the year 2010 reveal that despite a history of conflicts, mistrust and estranged relationship, an overwhelming number of Pakistanis and Indians want peace and friendship between the nuclear-armed South Asian nations. Although, the process of composite dialogue between Islamabad and New Delhi remains stalled since the 2008 Mumbai carnage, 72 per cent Pakistanis and 66 per cent Indians hope to see 'sustainable friendly relations' in their lifetime. Compared with last year, the number of Indians hoping to see peace in their lifetime has surged by 17 per cent.

According to the survey, awareness of the Kashmir problem as being central to the state of relations between the two countries, particularly in India, has increased. The survey results show that 77 per cent Pakistanis and 87 per cent of Indians feel that peace can be achieved by settling the protracted Kashmir dispute. The survey showed that the issue of Pakistan-India relations featured in the thoughts of 73 per cent Pakistanis and 68 per cent Indians. The survey results said apart from settling the Kashmir dispute, 80 per cent Pakistanis and 91 per cent Indians think 'stronger relations and better defence' would also contribute in achieving the goal of peace. Around 77 per cent of Pakistanis and 87 per cent Indians consider that international pressure may help in bringing peace, while 71 per cent Pakistanis and 72 per cent Indians pin hopes on greater people-to-people contact to pave the way for friendly relations. Eighty-one per cent Pakistanis and Indians see people-to-people contact as an effective 'instrument of peace'.

Unless a larger numbers of people in both countries stop viewing each other as the enemy and realise that those across the border pay a heavy price due to the protracted conflict and that they are also too caught up with the survival struggle like us to obsess over an enemy until then vested interests will be able to continue the conflict by cashing in on our fear of the other. Aman ki Asha is an attempt to make the population of both the countries aware that they have paid a huge price in developmental terms due to the continued conflict; that they may find it easy to live without the peace dividends, but that they won’t be able to sustain the mounting costs of conflict for too long. It is an effort to remove mistrust & hatred fed from early childhood of suspicion and animosity and open up to the opportunities of peace & development. Also, for achieving a permanent solution to any long drawn conflict, it is important to build a strong peace constituency that supports concessions and compromises required in such deals.

It is said that a journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step. I have made many Indian friends through Aman Ki Asha campaign and I look forward to a rewarding journey towards a better, shared destiny. In the New Year, one hopes this initiative can be extend its scope to deal with some of the intractable issues between our countries and still hope for peace.

It gives me pleasure to wish the Aman ki Asha friends and all the peace loving people of the two countries a very happy 2011 !

Realtime Commentsgreat free widgetsWidgetboxMore info

Get Twitter Buttons

Long Live Pakistan China Friendship 巴基斯坦中国友好万岁

2011-01-03T18:26:00.033+05:00

Chinese Prime Minister Wen Jiabao concluded his three day visit to Pakistan with historic address to Parliament on Sunday.

"Pakistan is a great nation and I feel I am at home here. The Pakistan-China friendship is in our blood. This is an evergreen friendship. The exemplary friendship between the two countries is higher than the Himalayas and deeper than the ocean." Wen Jiabao. Wen recalled a Pakistan saying, "A good neighbour is Allah's blessing", and narrated a parallel Chinese quote: "Value your neighbour more than your relatives living far away."

His address was a clear proof that the Chinese leaders were fully abreast of the challenges being faced by Pakistan as he pointed out that in recent years in the face of complex external environment and several challenges, Pakistan has remained committed to an independent foreign policy and firmly safeguarded its sovereignty.

It is because of the special nature of the relationship between the two countries that the Chinese leader received extraordinary protocol right from the entrance of his special aircraft into Pakistani airspace when two JF-17 thunder aircraft, one of the shining symbols of friendship as the fighter has been jointly produced by the two countries, escorted the distinguished guest. Apart from the traditional meetings with the President and Prime Minister, Chinese Premier met with leaders of all political parties of Pakistan. Rather, it was a rare mosaic of Pakistani political, religious, and territorial leadership gathering to welcome their all time friend in Islamabad. This gathering was indicative of the fact that, there exists no second opinion about Pakistan’s relationship with the People’s Republic of China. No global leader ever has such a reception and united response and indeed a spirit of love from Pakistan ever.

Following the establishment of Pak-China diplomatic relationship in May 1951, both countries has attained many milestones in their bi-lateral relationship. Pakistan, otherwise among the first few countries, which recognized this great communist state, proved its friendship by making strong lobby in getting the UN membership for China. The initial slow pace of mutual understanding got an impetus following the Sino-India war of 1962. In the era of Field Martial Muhammad Ayub, then Foreign Minister (later Prime Minister), Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto formalised this relationship on the strategic direction. Through his strategic vision, he made Pak-China relationship as an essential and never changing pillar of the Foreign Policy of Pakistan.

Even the most sceptical reader of reports of the visit by Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao to our shores would have to concede that it has exceeded expectations. International relations are never entirely static, they are shifting all the time, and nobody is a ‘forever friend’. To paraphrase Lord Palmerston - ‘Nations have no permanent friends and no permanent enemies. Only permanent interests’.

China's massive investment in this time proves two things. One is that China is a genuine ally of Pakistan, and second, it is a clear signal to the U.S. that if the U.S. supports India against China, China will support Pakistan. China is the main supplier of defence and military hardware to Pakistan. China has also helped Pakistan to build its main nuclear power generation facility and is helping build another one.

$20 billion of trade deals were made, a further $10 billion worth of deals were inked on Wen Jiabao visit to Pakistan and Chinese have gifted us a Pak-China friendship centre worth Rs2.5 billion. This landmark buildings in the federal capital, is a reflection of the deep rooted friendship between Pakistan and China. China has pledged to help resuscitate our energy sector – we only produce about 80 per cent of the electricity we need – and over the next five years 36 projects will be completed. A one-gigawatt nuclear power plant that, if built, could produce 8,000 megawatts of electricity by 2025.

Strengthening and promoting strategic, brotherly relations is our joint strategic choice and they are in the interests of two countries and their people. We should honour our ally by demonstrating that their confidence was not misplaced. The two Asian nations are close, friendly neighbors linked by common mountains and rivers, as well as all-weather strategic partners, and their multi-dimensional cooperation is built on the basis of mutual understanding, mutual trust and mutual support. In spite of changes that occurred in the regional and international environment, the friendship between Pakistan and China is time-tested and has turned increasingly firmer and much more solid as time goes by and is deep-rooted in the hearts and ethos of people of the two nations.

Win-win economic ties and friendly business relations is another area which will further cement the relations. Chinese government has always encouraged Chinese private entrepreneurs to invest in Pakistan in all areas, especially in energy sector. Pakistan would be well advised to seize this opportunity and gradually abandon its total dependence on the US and their exploitative tool the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and free itself from taking dictation from them.

The question here is whether our West-leaning leadership is prepared to pick up the hint and cast our lot with China. China is, indeed, a peace-loving country and it has neither bullied its smaller neighbours nor has it ever tried to extend hegemony over other countries. It is more interested in improving its economy rather than engaging itself in any military entanglement because economic strength can help increase military strength.

Here in Pakistan, where the security establishment has prevented the expansion of economic ties with India until there is some movement on political and security issues, the Chinese example ought to be studied. China has benefited enormously by treating economic needs separately from security concerns. Why can't Pakistan do the same?

Unfortunately, there are no indications that we have learnt anything from our Chinese friends by witnessing the economic miracles taking place there. Economy remains the least priority and the entire focus is on politicking and as a consequence even after 63 years of independence, we are still out with begging bowl. It is time we reorder our priorities, work hard like Chinese and devote fullest possible attention to achieve economic break through. Chinese have time and again demonstrated that they firmly stood by us and are eager to provide necessary assistance in this regard and it is now for us to exploit the opportunity to our advantage.

巴基斯坦中国友好万岁

中国总理温家宝结束地址与历史上周日他的三个议会天的访问的巴基斯坦。“巴基斯坦是一个伟大的国家，我觉得我在家里就在这里。巴基斯坦和中国的友谊是在我们的血液。友谊，这是一种常绿。两国之间的友谊是典范比喜马拉雅山还高，比海深。“温家宝。温家宝说一个巴基斯坦说：“一个好邻居是真主的祝福“，并讲述一个平行中引述：“珍惜你的邻居比你的生活更遥远的亲戚。“

他的讲话是一个清楚地证明了中国领导人的挑战，充分了解被巴基斯坦面临着他指出，在复杂的外部环境和面临一些挑战，近年来，巴基斯坦一直坚定不移地奉行独立自主的外交政策，坚定不移地维护其主权。这是因为两国之间的领导人说，中国从接收到巴基斯坦领空的飞机在他的特别权力关系的入口非常特殊性质的协议时，二架JF -17雷电飞机，作为友谊的光辉战斗机的标志之一已共同制作的两个国家，陪同贵宾。

相反，它是一个巴基斯坦的政治，宗教，领土等所有聚会，欢迎他们在伊斯兰堡的老朋友领导罕见的马赛克。这次聚会是一个事实，即不存在对巴基斯坦的与人民共和国的关系，中国第二意见的指示。没有全球性的领导者曾经有这样的接待和统一的反应，确实是从巴基斯坦的爱永远的精神。继1951年5月的柏林中国建交，这两个国家已经达到了双边关系的许多里程碑。巴基斯坦，证明并非如此首批少数几个国家，承认这个伟大的共产主义国家，通过在中国获得了强大的游说联合国会员国的友谊。

最初的相互了解步伐缓慢的推动下得到了一个1962年中印战争。在外地武术穆罕默德阿尤布，当时的外交部长（后来的首相）的时代，阿里布托确立了长期的战略方向的关系。通过他的战略眼光，他伯中国作为一个基本和永不改变的巴基斯坦外交政策的支柱的关系。即使是在由中国总理温家宝访问我们的海岸大部分报告持怀疑态度的读者将不得不承认，它已经超出了预期。国际关系从来没有完全静态的，他们将所有的时间，没有人是'永远的朋友'。

套用帕默斯顿勋爵- '国家间没有永远的朋友也没有永远的敌人。只有永久的利益。中国在这个时候大量投资证明了两件事情。之一是，中国是巴基斯坦真正的盟友，二，这是一个明确的信号，美国说，如果美国支持中国对印度，中国支持巴基斯坦。中国的国防和军事装备给巴基斯坦的主要供应商。中国还帮助巴基斯坦建造核能发电的主要设施，并帮助建立一个又一个。200亿美元的贸易协议进行了，再100亿美元的交易总值就温家宝访问巴基斯坦和中国签署了天才我们伯中国友谊中心价值Rs2.5亿元。在联邦首都这一里程碑式的建筑，是中国和巴基斯坦两国间深厚的友谊根深蒂固的思考。中国已承诺协助抢救我们的能源部门 -我们只生产大约百分之八十的电力，我们需要-在未来五年将完成36个项目年。阿一亿瓦的核电站，如果建成，到2025年可以生产8000兆瓦的电力。

加强和促进战略，兄弟般的关系是我们共同的战略选择，他们在两国和两国人民的利益。我们要履行我们通过展示他们的信心是没有错的盟友。这两个亚洲国家的接近，由山水相连，以及全天候的战略合作伙伴的友好邻邦，他们的多层面的合作是建立在相互理解，相互信任和相互支持基础之上的。在变化，在地区和国际环境发生尽管如此，巴基斯坦和中国之间的友谊是经过时间考验的，并随着时间的日益转向更坚定，更扎实的推移，是深中的心和人民的精神扎根两个国家。

双赢的经济关系和友好的业务关系，是另一个领域，将进一步巩固关系。中国政府一贯鼓励中国民营企业家投资巴基斯坦在各个领域特别是在能源部门。巴基斯坦将被建议抓住这一机遇，逐步放弃完全依赖于美国和剥削的工具，国际货币基金组织（IMF）和免费的市民从这里them.The听写本身的问题是，是否我们的亲西方的领导准备拿起心领神会，铸有中国自己的命运。

中国确实是一个爱好和平的国家，它没有欺负它的小邻国也从未试图扩大对其他国家的霸权。它更在改善经济，而不是纠缠从事任何军事本身的经济实力，因为可以帮助增加军事实力感兴趣。在这里，在巴基斯坦，那里的安全机构已无法与印度的经贸关系发展，直到有一定的政治和安全问题的运动，中国的例子应该加以研究。中国受益很大的安全问题来对待，从经济需求分开。巴基斯坦为什么不能这样做？

不幸的是，没有迹象表明我们从中国朋友那里听说了什么目睹那里正在发生的经济奇迹。经济仍然是最不优先和重点的整个政治活动并因此即使在独立63年来，我们仍然没有用乞讨的碗。现在是我们调整我们的优先事项，工作努力，投入像中国最大可能的关注，以实现经济突破。中国已多次表明，他们坚定地站在我们都渴望在这方面提供必要的援助，现在是我们利用我们的优势的机会。

Realtime Commentsgreat free widgetsWidgetboxMore info

Get Twitter Buttons

Peace not War

2010-11-12T19:31:00.014+05:00

Indo Pak dialogue - the only way forward

Subcontinent leaderships have time and again floundered peace. Sometimes it is the recklessness on the Pakistani side and at other times the Indian officialdom chants the trust-deficit mantra. But this must end. It is clear that the peoples of the two countries want peace, security and progress. A causal look at India’s poverty and Pakistan’s social indicators proves this point.

When you have two long-feuding countries like Pakistan and India, each with a strong national ego, and each having powerful hate lobbies waiting to denounce any compromise as a betrayal, it is not easy to make progress in negotiations. In any event, diplomacy is a slow grind and a waiting game requiring great patience and perseverance and given our history, it is clear there are no quick fixes and no dramatic solutions.

The chequered, bilateral relationship between the neighbours is desperately in need of confidence building measures: i.e increased trade and people-to-people contacts. Well over a billion people on both sides of the border could immensely benefit if the their respective governments and establishments were to demonstrate the courage and will to resolve their differences (for India the bone of contention would be terrorism and for Pakistan Kashmir, Water) and let each other live in peace and without seeing the other as the enemy.

India’s troop reduction will give confidence to the national security apparatus. The second plank of this new framework should build on the Kashmir Confidence Building Measures (CBM’s) increasing the flow of people and goods backed by [in] formal diplomatic engagement. Furthermore, media and telecommunication restrictions need to be lifted on both sides.

The information deficit is even stronger than the trust deficit. A majority of Indians hold Pakistan fully responsible for the Mumbai event. The caveat here is that they often forget that Pakistan is also a victim of terrorism. It is clear that regional stability is a foremost priority for India given its focus on achieving a 10 per cent growth rate. Pakistan should benefit from this dynamic by expanding trade with India. Mutual trade will be a win-win situation and give a much-needed boost to our economy.

With the horrors wreaked by the Taliban in Pakistani cities (especially in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa bordering Afghanistan) , it has become clear that it is as much in Pakistan’s interest as it is in India’s interest to eradicate violent extremism. India too must realise that the destabilisation of Pakistan would increase the menace of terrorism manifold, and that it is in India’s interest to strengthen the Pakistani government in fighting the extremists. Given this convergence of strategic interests, the most important requirement at this time is the need to dispel the trust deficit that seems to be the main impediment in improving relations between them. Both need to exhibit maturity: there has to be a willingness to understand each other’s concerns and sensitivities.

It is time for the two governments to take stock of their fast changing societies & economies and let the two countries and their people understand each other. There is a clear path ahead: keep talking and doing business for mutual gains. Concurrently, the two democracies have to deliver public goods and fight poverty. They need to be resolute and develop a new framework for peace. The overarching agreement should be to continue talking. This is not the time for point-scoring but redeeming our bitter histories.

A start has to be made and this should not be squandered, or else hawks in both India and Pakistan will feel further emboldened. It is fashionable to deride the vigil brigade for being unrealistic but there is no alternative to people-to-people contacts.

Realtime Commentsgreat free widgetsWidgetboxMore info

Get Twitter Buttons

The Wagah Saga

2010-11-12T17:40:00.011+05:00

Bread not Bombs !

For years, the military flag-lowering ceremony that takes place every evening at the Wagah border post has drawn crowds of partisan tourists who cheer every hostile strut and stare traded by the border guards on both sides. Hundreds of people gather on both sides of the Wagah (Pakistan border post with India) to witness the flag-lowering ceremony and watch the urbaned border guards march. On a daily basis, both sides clap for there own country to express mutual insult and renew their hatred for each other across the frontier. Participants on both sides are addicted to this pantomime of hatred and raise slogans promising the destruction of each other’s country. This is happening for years and has poisoned the minds of an untold number of spectators who go there to see soldier’s strutting. I am always wondering who ordered this childish display of choreographed aggression?

While locals enjoys, foreigners pity the two nations that allowed the farce every evening. Our daily cheap entertainment has apparently caused suffering to the innocent soldiers who obey the orders of their “seniors “and carry out the daily farce. It has gone on for years and poisoned the minds of an untold number of spectators who went there to see soldiers strutting. Our cheap entertainment has apparently caused suffering to the innocent men who obeyed orders and carried out the daily farce. The savage stomping of the foot and then raising it unnaturally to the face of the opponent was a travesty of the goose step itself. What the soldiers got was not victory over the rival country but a jolt in the joint that disabled them for normal service.

This silly drill was very symbolic and hardly covered the leadership on both sides of the border with glory. It not only perpetuated war but also showed the border post as a point where people were asked to expect aggression in place of trade and tourism. Peace movements from both sides went to Wagah, every time the drums of war were sounded, to offset the war obsession. They were most often not allowed to meet and returned broken-hearted after seeing the horrible drill. The foreigners who saw this were disgusted and took movies of it to show back home to scare their children of the dangers of war. This ritual was a ritual of dishonour.

The distant future in our region is that of peace and not war. Sooner rather than later armed rangers will be replaced by staff that examines traded commodities going to Central Asia in the west and Bangladesh in the east. As high as 55 per cent potential of intra-regional trade in South Asia has remained untapped and more than $1.8 billion worth of trade potential between the arch-rivals has remained unutilised, which is over 80 per cent of the existing bilateral trade.

Regional trade could directly affect South Asia’s human development through generating employment, enhancing income and contributing to poverty reduction. Countries need to trade to upgrade worker knowledge, reduce poverty and improve well-being of people. One-third of Pakistan’s population lives below the poverty line, which is only second to Bangladesh in the region. A large section of the population lives on $1.25 a day!

Realtime Commentsgreat free widgetsWidgetboxMore info

Get Twitter Buttons

India Pakistan - the key to peace

2010-09-03T08:11:00.012+05:00

Dialogue is the only way forward
By Afzal Rahim

It is one of history’s ironies that a people who share so much, refuse to acknowledge their similarities and focus so avidly on their differences. It is time to restore the equilibrium. Public opinion is far too potent a force to be left in the hands of narrow vested interests. The people of today must find its voice and force the rulers to listen. Peace between India and Pakistan has been stubbornly elusive and yet tantalizingly inevitable. This vast subcontinent senses the bounties a peace dividend can deliver to its people yet it recoils from claiming a share. The natural impulse would be to break out of the straitjacket of stated positions and embrace an ideal that promises sustained prosperity to the region, yet there is hesitation. There is a collective paralysis of the will, induced by the trauma of birth, amplified by false starts, mistrust, periodic outbreaks of violence, suspicion, misplaced jingoism and diplomatic doublespeak. Hypnotized by their own mantra, the two states are reluctant to move towards normalization until certain terms and certain promises are kept. Transforming that rivalry into a mature, productive relationship will be difficult. But the consequences of continued animosity will be much worse.

The creation of India & Pakistan as independent states 63 years back raised the issues rooted in colonial legacy as well as historical acrimony. The region is often recognized as a high risk conflict zone because of history of tense relations- border clashes, limited or large scale wars between these two neighbours. India-Pakistan differences show several aspects of the historical enmity ranging from territorial dispute to water issues to security paranoia i.e. demarcation of maritime boundary. Sir Creek, Baglihar Dam, Siachen Glacier, Wullar Barrage. These perceptions between the two armed forces, arms proliferation so on and so forth. The future of the state of Jammu & Kashmir has been a highly contentions issue between India and Pakistan. From the very time these two states gained their independence. And since then this issue has continued to cast a shadow over the South Asian region. Worse, the two states fought three major wars (1948, 1965 & 1971) out of which two had their origins in the Kashmir dispute (1948 & 1965). That's why, this problem is the base of differences and any hope for peace and security in South Asia lies in the solution of this issue. Despite various efforts both India and Pakistan have failed to resolve this issue.

In this perennial season of inertia and zero-sum calculations prejudices continue to fester, stereotypes are entrenched and myth replaces reality. Tragically, opportunity knocks unheard on doors bolted on the inside. Opportunism, that appeals to atavistic passions, elicits an instant response to every single knock. People must write its own placards and fashion its own slogans. Why don’t we realize how alike we are, how the ‘other side’ wasn’t so much the ‘other side’ but more the ‘same side;’ how somewhere underneath all the layers of hatred and misguided passion fuelled by ignorance and propaganda, we’re all the same. We’re not Indian or Pakistani, we’re ‘subconties’ (sub continentals), we’re “youth without borders”, we’re “citizens of the world.” When the two neighbors meet they move almost seamlessly into the shared cultural and human ethos. They talk to each other about food, about music, about poetry, about films, about theatre and about the prolonged absences spawned by lost years. They share anxieties, discuss rising prices, seek advice on their children’s education, gossip about their in-laws, trade anecdotes and laugh at the foibles of politicians. A social compact based on a simple yet powerful impulse – India Pakistan people to people contact. A desire for peace!

We want to lower the walls so that the conversation continues. We have to nurture the seeds of peace that have nestled, untended, for decades in hostile soil. The leaders must learn to be led and not blindly followed. Skepticism about the given is often the genesis of faith. This skepticism has been brewing. It can be unleashed to forge a new social compact between the people of this region. We owe our unborn generations the right to rise out of the depths of poverty, and squalor. It is embarrassing to read the statistics confirming our resistance to positive change in the fields of education, health and poverty alleviation. All social indices are stacked against us and will remain so unless we scatter the war clouds that menace our skies. Such hypocrisy is compounded by the fact that most citizens in the subcontinent remain desperately poor and deeply frustrated by generations of neglect and exploitation by elites to whom they are invisible except when it is politically expedient. Politicians opportunistically drum up jingoistic diatribes, complete with rent-a-crowd protesters, against our neighbours, who can be conveniently blamed for everything, but mostly terrorism. It doesn't help that India and Pakistan have gone to war on four occasions and have a history of supporting violent insurgencies in each other's territory. There are external elements at work in the region that thrive on the animosity between the two neighbours. They have a stake in keeping the region in turmoil. We need to combat them by making them irrelevant.

Peace between India and Pakistan is not only necessary for sustaining economic growth but also vital for building pluralistic democracies and sustaining the integrity of both states. India, which is ranked at 142 in terms of per capita income, ranks first in the world in terms of arms imports. Pakistan is not far behind, being ranked 119 in terms of per capita income and 10th in the world in terms of arms imports. Peace with India and people to people contact will mean a substantially improved environment for the much-needed foreign and domestic investment for both the countries. The national security of both countries is threatened not by the neighbour across the border but by internal social forces of intolerance, violence, and poverty. A surge of goodwill and flexibility on the part of civil society and the media will push these forces back by denying them the raw material that manufactures hate. The continuation of Peace process between the two countries should not stop. These efforts will help to reach any logical conclusion. To further strengthen the peace process the principles of flexibility and reciprocity needs to be given utmost importance.

Out of the two stalling states, Pakistan is in deep internal trouble. Its economy is belly-up, posting its lowest growth rate, and inflation threatening to go hyper. Because of terrorism and regional disaffection, governance is at its lowest ebb. There are foreign and local terrorists on its soil who bomb any place they like and kill whomever they choose, anywhere in the country. Under pressure from shortages and natural calamities, the people are adopting extremist views and embracing xenophobia not suitable for a state in such dire need of external support. The courts are bending in the face of extremism and are not protected against terrorist threats when hearing cases against terrorists.

Those in India who think it’s no use talking to Pakistan when it is sinking should know that waiting for Pakistan to evaporate from the face of the earth may take too long and lose India the chance to help Pakistan at arriving at a bilaterally acceptable solution to disputes which will actually be Pakistan’s ‘self-correction’ in disguise. It is quite possible that Pakistan has lost its ability to set things right at home even if it wants to, in which case it needs to be helped rather than challenged

Get Twitter Buttons

From NWFP to Pakhtunkhwa

2010-02-14T12:13:00.016+05:00

Historical Background:

It will take 109 years to correct a historical wrong. It was in 1901, when the North West Frontier Province was carved out of Punjab. The province was merged into what was called One Unit in 1955, with Lahore becoming the capital of the new administrative unit. Gen Yahya Khan dissolved the One Unit in July 1970 and restored the provinces of the NWFP, Punjab, Sindh and Balochistan. The 1973 Constitution continued with the British nomenclature.

Pakhtun nationalist and ANP President Wali Khan, who despite being the Leader of the Opposition in the lower house of the Parliament and having reservations over the nomenclature, affixed his signature to give Pakistan its first consensus Constitution in 1973. The Pakhtun nationalist parties, however, continued to press for a change of name. Alternatives included Pashtunistan, Pakhtunkhwa and Afghania.

Sensing strong opposition to Pashtunistan, the nationalist parties later changed tack and started calling the NWFP as Pakhtunkhwa, citing historical references both dating to the time of Greek historian Herodotus and later to emperor Shahabuddin Ghauri. Pakhtunkhwa, they hoped, would be less controversial and therefore find approval, particularly in Punjab, whose votes were crucial in amending the Constitution. It however, remained a distant dream. The PML, with which the ANP twice shared power, refused to support the amendment, leading to the collapse of their coalition government in the NWFP. It is said that Mian Nawaz Sharif had broached the matter with the later ANP leader Wali Khan shortly before his government was dismissed in a military coup by General Pervez Musharraf.

The debate on renaming the North-West Frontier Province (NWFP) concerns the identity of its people and their place in the federation of Pakistan. The issue was to provide identity to its majority Pakhtun population. Names such as Neelab, Nuristan and Darul Islam have been proposed for NWFP. Abaseen and Khyber were pushed into the limelight after receiving backing from the PML-N and PML-Q. One didn’t hear Gandhara, the old Buddhist-era name of the Frontier, as a possible new name, or part of a compound name. Gandhara is certainly better in the historical context than, say, Khyber and Abaseen. Abaseen is a name used for River Indus that runs not just through the NWFP but also Gilgit-Baltistan, Punjab and Sindh, while Khyber is the name of a mountain pass that links Afghanistan with Pakistan.

Name Options

Khyber Pass is the most famous of them, but we also have the Gomal, Tochi, Khojak, Nawa and other passes that connect the two countries. Naming educational institutions, banks and other institutions after Khyber has been a popular option because it is non-controversial and possibly also for want of more suitable names. But neither Abaseen nor Khyber could confer the identity that most people in NWFP seek in demanding the renaming of their province.

Lately, compound names have been proposed for NWFP as a compromise to overcome the deadlock between the two major parties to the dispute, the Awami National Party (ANP) and the PML-N. Hyphenation to “Pakhtunkhwa” of names including “Abaseen,” “Khyber,” “Hazara” and “Afghania” have been suggested as a way out of the stalemate. But not only will this make the new name long, but there will be no end to demands by other parts of NWFP, including Dera Ismail Khan and Chitral, seeking the addition of the names of the own regions.

Facts & Figures

3.9 per cent Pakhtuns in the census mentioned Pashto as their mother tongue, though there are many others in Dera Ismail Khan, including the Jadoons, Tarins, Mashwanis and Swatis in Hazara region and Miankhels, Gandapurs and Kundis, who are Pakhtuns but have forgotten Pashto. The census figures for the Federally Administered Tribal Areas (Fata), which are geographically and politically part of NWFP, are even more revealing in terms of the Pakhtun identity of the population. In 1998 an overwhelming 99.1 per cent of the 3.176 million population of Fata, to which the change of name will also apply, declared Pashto as their mother tongue. Even though the tribal areas have a largely separate administrative setup, it is headed by the governor of NWFP. If the Fata figures are added to those of the settled areas or districts falling under NWFP, the percentage of Pakhtuns and Pashto-speakers will rise even further. In opposing the renaming of the province to Pakhtunkhwa, the two Muslim League factions led by Mian Nawaz Sharif and Chaudhry Shujaat Hussain are driven by the fear of losing votes in certain non-Pashto-speaking areas. These are the only two significant political parties represented in parliament that object to the name Pakhtunkhwa. If democratic norms are to be followed, then the wishes of the majority need to be respected in the renaming. The NWFP Assembly, reflecting the will of the people, a passed resolution in favour of Pakhtunkhwa by majority vote in November 1997, with only the Saifullah brothers, Salim and Humayun, opposing it, and lawmakers from the PML-N, which was then a coalition partner of the ANP in NWFP, abstaining from the vote.

Abstention isn’t opposition and the decision not to oppose the resolution was taken to save the coalition government from collapsing. Politics rather than principles was behind this decision by the then PML-affiliated chief minister Sardar Mahtab Ahmad Khan, Pir Sabir Shah and other Hazara politicians now in the forefront of opposition to Pakhtunkhwa. It is intriguing that the PML-N, according to Pir Sabir Shah, was willing to accept Afghania as the new name for NWFP. Though the ANP leadership too appears ready to agree to Afghania, it is difficult to understand how this name would protect the identity of non-Pakhtuns in Hazara or elsewhere who believe Pakhtunkhwa would wipe out their identity. Abaseen, Khyber and other names too cannot give an identity to the non-Pakhtun populations, but they would certainly deprive the majority Pakhtuns of their identity.

Putting the Record straight

The argument against Pakhtunkhwa that it is ethnic-based is neutralised by the fact that all other provinces in Pakistan carry names that identify the majority ethnic groups living there. Even if Punjab is named after its five rivers or Sindh after the River Indus, the majority populations in the two provinces have come to be known as Punjabis and Sindhis. Balochistan is obviously named after the Baloch, the majority ethnic group in the province along with their Brahvi cousins.

Statistics
The number of Saraiki-speakers in Punjab are 17.36 per cent of its population, compared to 75.23 Punjabis; in Sindh only 59.73 per cent of the population speaks Sindhi, while 21.05 per cent speaks Urdu; 6.99 per cent speak Punjabi and 4.19 per cent Pashto; in Balochistan, not more than 54.76 per cent of the population name Balochi as their mother tongue, compared to 29.64 per cent naming Pashto, 5.58 per cent Sindhi, 2.52 per cent Punjabi, and 2.42 per cent Saraiki. In fact, Pashto-speakers in NWFP and Fata form the largest group of a single ethnicity in any province in Pakistan.Ignoring the aspirations of the Pakhtun people (15.42 per cent), who form the second-largest ethnic group in Pakistan after Punjabis (44.15 per cent) and refusing to provide them an identity in the renaming of their province, would be both undemocratic and unjust.

At the end of the day, it will be the ANP and President Zardari (who firstly took the name at United Nation General Assembly in 2009) which will rightly claim the credit for undertaking what was until recently considered an impossible task of correcting a historical wrong and giving an identity to the people of “Khyber Pakhtunkhwa”.

Get Twitter Buttons