Five Rupees

Journalistic Ingenuity Of The Day

ahsanib@gmail.com (Ahsan) — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 20:53:00 +0000

Sid Lowe describes what one Spanish journalist did when asked to write a hundred-word report on a particularly boring game of football:

Asked for 100 words on Recreativo's crashingly dull 1-0 win over Real Sociedad, Marca's José Luis Hurtado wrote: "Maradona, Di Stéfano, Pelé, Cruyff, Van Basten, Gullit, Zidane, Gento, Puskas, Roberto Baggio, Torpedo Muller, Zico, Bergkamp, Eusebio, Futre, Blokhin, Breitner, Cabrini, Conti, Elkjaer, Laudrup, Garrincha, Gascoigne, Krol, Francescoli, Matthaus, Beto Alonso., Gigi Riva, Rossi, Antognoni, Beckenbauer, Bobby Charlton, George Best, Giggs, Kempes, Boniek, Romario, Bonhof, Liam Brady, Careca, Jarzinho, Cantona, Cafu, Luis Suarez, Kubala, Deyna, Didi, Eder, Donadoni, Redondo, Hagi, Giresse, Haan, Uli Hoeness, Rummenigge, Dalglish, Keegan, Kopa, Tigana, Guardiola, Rivera, Rivelino, Mazzola, Schuster, Simonsen, Falcao, Hugo Sánchez, Ronald Koeman, Pereira, Mágico Gonzalez, Mauro Silva, Maldini, Franco Baresi, Panenka, Bebeto, Overath, Tostao, Waddle and Zola would not have liked this match. Nor did I."

This Will Go Over Well With The Zaid Hamid/Shireen Mazari/Ahmad Qurashi Crowd: The US Has Plans To Guard Pakistani Nukes In The Event Of A Mutiny

ahsanib@gmail.com (Ahsan) — Sun, 08 Nov 2009 06:48:00 +0000

Apologies for the long title. This is from Sy Hersh's latest piece in the New Yorker:

Obama did not say so, but current and former officials said in interviews in Washington and Pakistan that his Administration has been negotiating highly sensitive understandings with the Pakistani military. These would allow specially trained American units to provide added security for the Pakistani [nuclear] arsenal in case of a crisis.

That's not even the best part of the the story. This is:

A senior Pakistani official who has close ties to Zardari exploded with anger during an interview when the subject turned to the American demands for more information about the arsenal. After the September 11th attacks, he said, there had been an understanding between the Bush Administration and then President Pervez Musharraf “over what Pakistan had and did not have.” Today, he said, “you’d like control of our day-to-day deployment. But why should we give it to you? Even if there was a military coup d’état in Pakistan, no one is going to give up total control of our nuclear weapons. Never. Why are you not afraid of India's nuclear weapons?” the official asked. “Because India is your friend, and the longtime policies of America and India converge. Between you and the Indians, you will fuck us in every way."

Alright, loyal readers. Set everything aside and try and figure this one out with me: who's this "senior Pakistani official"? You guys are very smart, so I know we can do this. We know that:

1. It's a man (ruling out Farahnaz Ispahani and Sherry Rehman).
2. It's someone unguarded enough to speak to Sy Hersh, even if it's off the record (ruling out anyone in an actual position of national power, such as Gillani, because they're all scared shitless of the Western press).
3. It's someone who is claimed to be to close to Zardari (ruling out 99.999999999% of Pakistan's population).
4. It's someone who feels comfortable using the word "fuck" in an interview (ruling out people who don't feel comfortable speaking in English in a natural way, such as Rehman Malik).
5. It's someone who has traces of anti-Indian sentiment (ruling out Husain Haqqani).

My guess is Salman Taseer. I know it's out there, but I always like darkhorses/underdogs in my betting schemes. Thoughts?

UPDATE: I just realized that in writing this post, I neglected to exhort you to go read the whole piece. It's really, really entertaining, and contains all sorts of juicy quotes. Say this for the New Yorker: their investigative reporting and feature writing is never, ever, EVER boring. Take twenty minutes out of your day to read the whole thing -- trust me.

UPDATE II: People may conclude based on the title of this post that the U.S. actually has contingency plans for safeguarding Pakistani nukes (uh, my bad for leading you on). If you read the actual piece, you'll realize very quickly that that is highly, highly unlikely. They (the Americans) don't actually have any real information because the military (quite rightly, in my view) refuses to be truthful on matters of nuclear security when discussing it with them. In a word, it's all bullshit.

Song Of The Day

ahsanib@gmail.com (Ahsan) — Sun, 08 Nov 2009 04:15:00 +0000

Today, I wrote close to 2500 words of academese that no one other than me, my advisers, and these people will ever read. My brain was and is fried. It took me about four hours of near constant writing, editing, backspacing, footnoting, reading, underlining and, most importantly, bullshitting.

I had this song on repeat for about one quarter of that time, making the day slightly more bearable.

Meera: The Interviewer

noreply@blogger.com (AKS) — Sat, 07 Nov 2009 08:47:00 +0000

SM recently forwarded me a short clip featuring Meera and Tapu Javeri that is currently doing the rounds on the interweb. Its titled "Meera The English Guru" and as can be be expected its purpose is to have a laugh at the expense of Meera who has a strange, overwhelming desire to speak in English, a language she is entirely incapable of speaking. Here's the clip:

The clip is borderline funny but not really hilarious, what is startling though is the manner in which the producers are exploiting the situation by making her speak in English, at one point near the end Meera even says that "yay meray say nahin hoga." Like I said earlier, one can laugh at Meera's expense because she puts herself in compromising situations and craves attention like nobody's business. But what cannot, and should not be tolerated is the role played by television producers in exploiting these shortcomings - I understand that exploitation is prevalent throughout the world, but that doesn't mean it should be so readily accepted. As it is, despite the strides made in recent years, its still not easy for women to be part of the media or entertainment sector and when producers start exploiting them then it makes it even harder for this to change.

All said, I love Tapu Javeri's nonchalance throughout the clip.

Apologies For The Lack Of Posting

ahsanib@gmail.com (Ahsan) — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 06:44:00 +0000

I'm very busy for the next week or so -- I have a fellowship application due on Wednesday -- so posting will be pretty light until then. I have two op-ed type pieces in the works though, and I also figure to liveblog our two T20 games against NZ next week, so stay tuned for that.

Receipt Of The Day (Updated Below)

ahsanib@gmail.com (Ahsan) — Tue, 03 Nov 2009 20:35:00 +0000

Via Ezra Klein, we discover how Chelsea owner Roman Abramovich can spend $47,000 in one afternoon at a Manhattan restaurant.

I'd make some joke about this being worthwhile compared to Malouda or Kalou, but honestly, I think this is funny enough as it stands. Needs no embellishment from me.

UPDATE: Can I note just one thing here? You have to be a pretty shameless restaurant to charge a 20% tip when the customer is already paying more than the annual salary of the waiter with just the base bill. I wonder if Roman just told them make it an even 50k.

UPDATE II: Can I note another thing? That's an awful lot of booze for six people at 2:30 in the afternoon. Even for Russians.

UPDATE III: Okay, last point, I promise. Apparently the restaurant sucks. Beautiful. Seriously, read these reader reviews from New York magazine and tell me this is not the greatest thing ever. An average rating of 2.6 (out of 10). Just beautiful.

PML(N): The One Dish Party

noreply@blogger.com (AKS) — Tue, 03 Nov 2009 09:47:00 +0000

At a recent wedding in Lahore I was surprised to learn that the Punjab government has once again introduced the one-dish law at weddings - hosts are, by law, prevented from serving more than one item of food. The PML (N) had, in its last stint leading the federal government, introduced the same law in the rest of the country but that law didn’t last the test of time. This is a monumentally stupid, culturally insensitive and unnatural law, and speaks volumes about the strategic depth of the PML (N)’s thinking. It also remains highly popular in Punjab, which is why it was the first legislation passed by the Punjab government. The rationale behind this law seems to be that it prevents wastage of food and stops families from trying to outdo each other in the food department even when they can't afford such luxuries.

First of all, there are better ways of ensuring that food isn’t wasted. Most people I know don’t throw away the food that’s left over; they take some home, distribute some amongst family members and give out the rest to the poor.

Secondly, people who treat weddings as competitions and imagine that being outdone in their choice of menu by the other side is a slight on their izzat are idiots and will always try act stupidly. The one-dish rule doesn’t inculcate humbleness in these people, it only directs their energies elsewhere: if its not the menu, they'll be competing over the venue, the clothes, the jewellery, the event planner, the cars, etc.

And surely when it comes to humbleness, Nawaz Shariff should first tell his family members to stop importing Siberian Tigers and stripping forested mountains to build gaudy summer palaces.

I can’t help but feel that there may be another reason for the Nawaz League’s decision enforce this inane law, they hate Pakistani weddings that are heavily influenced by South Asian traditions. I'm going out on a limb because I have nothing to support this contention but it wouldn’t surprise me if the Shariff brothers considered the purging of ‘Indian traditions’ from Pakistani weddings as their obligation. They are after all important leaders in the Islamic Republic of Pakistan.

Speaking of important leaders, shouldn’t the second largest party in the country, the leader of which has twice been elected Prime Minister show some sort of interest in issues of national importance such as say the civil war we're fighting, the outcome of which may well define our destiny? Ahsan has already pointed this out in his post here, and I'd asked similar questions here. I can understand the PPP’s hesitance on this issue, if things don’t go as to plan (whatever that plan may actually be) the pressure on them will be insurmountable therefore its best to keep the operation out of the public eye, but shouldn’t the PML(N) be voicing out some sort of opinion on the matter?

The only thing I’ve heard from the PML (N) has been their opposition of the Kerry Lugar, which by the way came about after the army had voiced out their frustrations over the bill’s language. In any event, the PML (N)’s opposition seemed to have little to do with the bill and more to do with their inherent hatred for America. It would have been nice to see a genuine debate on the bill, the PML(N) should have questioned the government how it allowed the statements requiring Pakistan ‘to do more’ to be inserted despite assurances by the Obama administration that this would not be done; it could also have questioned the government what is the point paying millions to lobbyists and PR firms and then have the Indian lobby kick our ass so handily, instead what we got was a farcical, myopic exercise in anti-Americana.

The PML (N) is in an enviable position, it is a political party not in power in a country faced with many, complex problems. It has the luxury of not having to prove the worthiness of its arguments, all it needs to do is criticize the government’s actions and present an alternative – it could be an unworkable, hair brained idea, but it should offer a solution to the big problems facing the country.

Instead, we get deafening silence on the biggest issue of them all: Militancy. Militants in NWFP. Separatists in Baluchistan. Terrorists in their own backyards. Nothing but silence from the PML(N). Can anyone please tell me the PML (N)’s plan to deal with these issues? There only answer seems to me to be: let the army deal with it.

The PML (N) has plenty of intelligent, politically savvy people in its ranks, but all of them seem incapable (or unwilling) of forming a policy that is based on a long term view, they instead seem to relish issues that bring short term popularity.

Case in point: The Sugar Crisis. I’ll leave it to the able chairman of the Competition Commission of Pakistan, Mr. Khalid Aziz Mirza, who was appointed by the Supreme Court to file a report on the Sugar shortage during proceedings in appeals filed by different parties against the Order dated 03-09-2009 of the Honourable Lahore High Court, Lahore, which fixed the retail price of sugar at Rs. 40 in the province of Punjab (I'm trying to find the report online, once I do I'll add the link). The CCP states:

As will be revealed later in this Report, the Government of Punjab admitted during the hearings held by the Commission that no professional exercise was done to arrive at the cost of production-related data while fixing the “support price”.

Punjab government's crackdown adversely affected the supply-chain - trucks belonging to the USC were stopped from carrying sugar across provincial lines as well.

This crisis of non-availability was precipitated, in particular, by the actions of the Government of the Punjab in August 2009 when it sealed the sugar mills and seized the stocks lying with the mills. This contributed in a most direct manner to interference with the normal demand-supply linkages of the sugar market. The panic on the part of the provincial governments disturbed these linkages to the detriment of all stakeholders, especially those on the supply-side such as sugar mills, dealers and retailers.

It is the Commission’s considered view that the present crisis did not arise because of a price hike but more so because of mismanagement on the part of the Federal and particularly the provincial governments. The crisis actually began when the Punjab government panicked at the rising sugar prices in August and sealed sugar mills while seizing the stocks lying with them.

Just to be clear, the above-mentioned passages are mere snippets from a 48 page document that blames the federal government, provincial governments and the media for creating this crisis; but the Competition Commission holds the Punjab government to be most responsible. Moreover, it should be noted that the Supreme Court was not too pleased with the Competition Commission’s report as it did not agree that the market alone should determine the price. The Honourable Supreme Court can't just shed the limelight when popularity is to be gained!

In light of the above, the PML (N) doesn't seem like the 'business party' it fashions itself to be and one really has to wonder whether its policies have ever brought long term gains to Pakistan’s economic climate. No matter what one thinks of General Musharraf's regime, its hard to deny that his administration did bring about economic wealth (admittedly this wealth was divided unevenly) and introduced measures that would improve the country’s economic well-being and prove valuable in the long run. Let's not forget that before being thrown out in 1999 the PML(N) wanted Pakistanis to eat grass so that we could blow up a mountain as part of an advertising campaign launching our brand in North Korea and trade with North Korea, and once we'd all had our share of the grass we could return to our newly built ghars [houses], park our freshly re-painted yellow cabs and go to sleep.

The last point that I wanted to raise is that despite its lust for popularity, the PML(N) appears to have given up on the three provinces not named Punjab. A while back Nawaz Shariff made a hue and cry about him being barred from coming to Karachi, nobody’s stopping him now. And nobody’s stopping him from going to Baluchistan, where the federation is slowly losing its limited control.

It's time for the PML(N) to grow up and not leave the big issues to the army, it needs to have clear policies and act like a major political party.

Priorities

ahsanib@gmail.com (Ahsan) — Tue, 03 Nov 2009 03:28:00 +0000

So I'm on Dawn's webpage, and this is what I find myself staring at:

Does that seem a little strange to you? The fact that our leaders and political stalwarts are mired in petty political disputes concomitant with innocent Pakistanis bearing the brunt of militant violence every week? Just a touch out of touch?

Cyril Almeida talked about this issue a couple of weeks ago, but I want to reiterate the point here, in a slightly different way.

No reasonable observer of politics can think that leaders and elected officials and powerful politicians will live the lives that common citizens live. It just won't happen, and it's foolish to expect it. When people complain about being vulnerable to terrorism while the Zardaris of the world are secure in bullet-proof Mercedes and ample security, it is a pointless complaint.

What isn't a pointless complaint, however, is the complete lack of empathy our leaders -- from Zardari to Gillani to Nawaz Sharif -- have shown during the last month of violence. As I said, they cannot know what ordinary citizens are going through. But they should at least pretend to care. They should act like leaders and not children at a birthday party, each most concerned with securing their share of the cake oblivious to the world around them. Would it be so unreasonable to hear something along the lines of "This is a difficult time for us all. We know that all Pakistanis' hearts are filled with despair, anger, fear and hurt. But we are in this together. We must remain unified and strong, and Inshallah, we will persevere in this conflict"?

Sometimes we forget this, so it bears repeating: the Pakistani state and its citizens are at war. Is it really so ridiculous to expect the government to provide some comfort and sense of unity in a time of war? Or is that reserved only for when we're fighting India?

But no, seriously, I can definitely see why the NRO is super-important right now and is worthy of a summit-level meeting between the PPP and its coalition allies. First things first, right?

A Family Destroyed By Terrorism

noreply@blogger.com (AKS) — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 08:14:00 +0000

As another blast rips through a civilian target, a market in Rawalpindi, the BBC tells us the story of Adnan Hussain, a teenager who lost his entire family in the Peshawar blast. Here is Adnan in his own words:

We had all been at my grandmother's house. My mum told me to go and fetch my dad from my uncle's place so we could all go to buy bangles and clothes and other stuff for the [cousin's] wedding.

I went to get my dad but decided not to go shopping and stayed with my uncle.

.......

An hour later, we heard the blast.

.......

I ran to the hospital and waited.

One after the other four bodies came in. I really can't describe how it felt.

I lost my mother, father, two aunts, my four sisters and my brother. Sonia was 12, Irum was eight, Sehrish was six, Fariah was five and my younger brother Salman was three years old.

They still haven't found five of the bodies.

What did my family do? Why would anyone do this to them? I don't understand.

And where was the security? They always tell us there's a red alert and security is high but there was nothing.

..........

I still have my grandmother, and my uncle told me not to worry and that he will take care of my schooling.

But all I can think about is that terrible day and I want to cry.

How Stupid Does The PIA Think We Are?

noreply@blogger.com (AKS) — Sun, 01 Nov 2009 05:17:00 +0000

As the government bends over backwards to keep the airline afloat, the grateful people at PIA have this to say:

THIS is apropos of your editorial , “ PIA’s nosedive” (Oct 21). PIA is nowhere near bankruptcy. It is meeting all its financial obligations itself without any subsidy from the government.

It has credit worthiness among global financial institutions and material supplying agencies and it is meeting all its financial obligations towards its creditors, vendors and posting operational profits. Fuel is not the only factor, still a major factor of financial losses to the airline.

The other factor is the devaluation of the Pakistani rupee against US dollar.

As an accounting requirement, PIA had to book the exchange difference on the entire amount of outstanding US dollar loans which contributed a net exchange loss of Rs24.1bn.

This exchange loss alone is almost 180 per cent of last year’s total company losses.

The high fuel prices, which reached $147/barrel in July 2008, contributed an additional expense of Rs15.5bn, the expense would have increased to Rs18.4bn if stringent savings, realised through fuel-efficient policies, capacity and route rationalisation plans, would not have been activated.

Both the rupee-dollar disparity and fuel prices were beyond PIA’s control and compelled a loss of Rs39.7bn during 2008.

The PIA management contained non-fuel expenses to just seven per cent as compared to an increase of 27 per cent in its net revenues. PIA’s total yearly percentage of employee expense is much lower than global averages.

For some understanding and as comparables it may be mentioned that the International Air Transport Association (IATA) reported global airline losses of $16.8bn in 2008. The projected airline industry loss for 2009 as projected by IATA is $11bn.

SYED SULTAN HASAN

General Manager, PIA

Karachi

(Courtesy: Dawn, Letters to the Editor)

The Most Dysfunctional Relationship In The World

ahsanib@gmail.com (Ahsan) — Sat, 31 Oct 2009 02:37:00 +0000

If you've watched The Sopranos, then you've had the experience of being bemused at the insanity that was the relationship between Christopher and Adriana (culminating in one of the most memorable hits in the entire series, when Silvio shot Adriana in a forest after Christopher ratted her out for talking to the FBI).

Well, Pakistan and the U.S. make those two look like Abelard and bloody Heloise. Consider the following facts:

1. Aid from the U.S., and other financial institutions such as the IMF at the behest of the U.S., have helped keep Pakistan's economy afloat at a time of great peril. To that end, the U.S. is promising seven and a half billion more dollars, and yet the reaction to that promised aid -- wrapped up in a maelstrom of nationalistic, ill-founded and uninformed outrage -- would suggest that the U.S. is stealing that amount of money from Pakistan's coffers, or worse.

2. Pakistan has paid enormous costs, both in treasure as well as in blood, in taking on militant outfits on its soil. And yet the near-constant refrain of "do more" from the U.S. continues unabated. Most recently, the visiting Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said that she disbelieved that the government was doing all it could to eradicate the presence of al-Qaeda from Pakistani soil. "Al Qaeda has had safe haven in Pakistan since 2002. I find it hard to believe that nobody in your government knows where they are and couldn’t get them if they really wanted to." Such statements, especially two days after one of the most horrific terrorist attacks in Pakistan's history, smack of insensitivity from someone who is supposed to be the highest diplomat of her country.

3. On the one issue where both governments seem to agree -- that of drone attacks -- the Pakistani populace is angry, both at the civilian toll exacted in the attacks as well as the the perceived incursions on Pakistan's sovereignty the attacks represent. Depending on which poll you trust, between 75 and 90 percent of Pakistanis oppose the use of drones in the tribal areas. This anger was manifested in townhall-style meetings Secretary Clinton held with Pakistani students and professionals on her visit. The strange thing about this anger is that the Pakistani government has, in effect, signed off on the use of drones, and so the logical place for the populace to direct their ire is toward the leaders they democratically elected, not the foreign country those democratically elected leaders have found an agreement with. But that is clearly not the case.

I don't have any broad policy-specific recommendations here. I just wanted to highlight what I consider to be an extremely strange state of affairs. With the abnormally high levels of distrust present in this relationship, it has to be the most bizarre alliance I have ever come across in international politics. Secretary Clinton's visit has brought this vision into sharp focus; it is unclear, from this vantage point, what exactly the three-day tour accomplished, or was meant to accomplish.

It also begs a broader strategic question: if the U.S. and Pakistan cannot cooperate or see eye-to-eye when their security interests overlap for the most part (the dismantling of militant networks on Pakistani soil), when huge amounts of aid are transferred, when diplomats from both countries try to sweet-talk the other to considerable lengths (for every Holbrooke or Clinton reference to seekh kababs, there is a Husain Haqqani or Shah Mahmood Qureshi reference to a "long-term partnership"), is there any hope for this relationship?

Don't shake your head; it was a rhetorical question.

A Scary Thought From Paul Krugman On Growth And Jobs

ahsanib@gmail.com (Ahsan) — Fri, 30 Oct 2009 17:25:00 +0000

Reacting to the news that the U.S. economy actually grew in the third quarter of this year, Krugman throws a wet blanket on things, and says growth isn't happening fast enough to affect the high levels of unemployment at present:

At this rate, we wouldn’t reach anything that feels like full employment until well into the second Palin administration.

Heh.

I Know Men Are Supposed To Be In To Younger Women And All

ahsanib@gmail.com (Ahsan) — Fri, 30 Oct 2009 15:34:00 +0000

But come on man. This is ridiculous.

The Curious Fundamentalist

noreply@blogger.com (AKS) — Fri, 30 Oct 2009 05:41:00 +0000

This is one of the craziest things I've heard in a long time, it involves a relative of my aunt's called S. S is a native of Karachi, she was always quite curious, a tomboy who liked playing with boys but who showed no interest in boys as she grew up. Her liberal parents never pushed her into being a 'typical Pakistani girl', and she was left to explore her identity, and even when this identity entailed 'close friendships' with girls it was left unspoken, never forbidden.

A few years ago, while she was in her mid-30s, S deserted Pakistan and left for America. She soon deserted being a woman and became, S the man. Her family, while taken aback stood by her, they didn't discuss the issue in the open but never disowned her and continued to treat like she belonged to the family. Recently, they were all shocked to see S return with a shoulder length beard, knee length shalwar and a woman by his side, his wife.

S was now a fundo. Not only that S now considered homosexuality a sin, trans-genders an abomination and people who have had sex change operations to have failed in the ultimate test. S now goes around the U.S. telling people how every single day he repents for having changed his sex, his identity crisis was a test from God and he failed.

Its quite apparent to me me that S needs serious help, his family really does need to intervene. At the same time what is interesting is that while S appears to be a Moulvi, he's ideologically much closer to a right wing evangelical christian.

In a recent email with NB we discussed how Islamic ideology which now appears backwards was revolutionary at the time but has since failed to adapt. There is no verve or dynamism to modern Islamic theology, and zealots have been given a free reign to define the religion. Even worse, modern Muslim 'scholars' (i.e. opportunist nut jobs) seem to be borrowing new ideas from their right-wing Christian brethren (i.e. opportunist nut jobs). So now we have people like Harun Yahya entering the Creationism v Evolution debate, offering a Muslim opinion, which really nothing more than a recycled lecture from Liberty University. The Quran is vague enough about the concept of creationism that evolution doesn't pose as much of a problem even for Muslims who believe in the literal interpretation of the Quran.

Then we have abortion regarding which we are getting to a point where most Muslims now believe abortion to be haram and permissible only if the life of the mother is in danger or where conception occurred after a rape (though even this is now being looked down upon). The Muslim pro-life campaign bases most of its arguments on Chapter 17, Verse 31 of the Quran which states:

"Kill not your children for fear of want; it is We who provide sustenance for them as well as for you; for verily killing them is a great sin."

The issue though is complicated by the acceptance by most Islamic schools that spirit is breathed into a fetus at 4 months, therefore before this period a fetus can't really be considered to be a child. This leaves the room open for a theologically sound Muslim pro-choice camp and in fact various scholars agree that while abortion during the first 4 months is wrong, it is not a punishable wrong. (The BBC summarizes abortion in Islam here.)

The stranger than fiction case of S and the Islamic movements on evolution and abortion show how conservatives of different religions are feeding off each other, this can't be a good thing.

Maybe Hillary Shouldn't Have Come (Updated Below)

ahsanib@gmail.com (Ahsan) — Wed, 28 Oct 2009 13:50:00 +0000

Ninety five people dead, in what must surely be the deadliest attack in Pakistan since the one in October 2007, aimed at Benazir's motorcade when she first returned (the one she survived but 150-odd people around her did not).

I don't know if the attack is a signal or response to Secretary Clinton's visit -- there is, after all, a lot else going on that would earn the ire of these militants -- but I'm positive it didn't help.

Some people remain trapped in buildings. The death toll will surely rise. And I don't have much else to say.

Photo credit: AFP

UPDATE: Read this. I stand behind every word.

UPDATE II: The NYT has a heart-breaking slideshow of images taken in the aftermath of the attack.

UPDATE III: Making the reference to the attack in October 2007 got me curious, and so I went back into our archives to see what I wrote at the time in response to the attack. It's interesting to see what has changed and what has not. You can almost literally hear the anguish in my writing at the time, begging for people to identify the real enemy to Pakistan and its citizens, and to stop placing the center of blame on violence on the U.S., India or other "foreign actors". The first leg -- that of identifying the Taliban has a force to deal with -- has shifted in public opinion (see pages 14, 15 and 16 of this report from the IRI, which has been surveying the Pakistani public regularly for over three years now).

The second leg has not shifted, and in fact, has probably gotten worse.

My Top Five International Relations Journal Article Titles

ahsanib@gmail.com (Ahsan) — Wed, 28 Oct 2009 03:36:00 +0000

I don't know why I'm making this list, but I just felt like it. Hereunder are the top five IR article titles. The extremely unscientific process in narrowing it down to these five involved judging (a) how out-there the title is, (b) how much unintentional comedy is contained in the title, and (c) to what extent the title tells you all you need to know about the article. Please understand this list just refers to the titles; by no stretch are these my favorite articles (except for Wendt's).

1. "Brother, Can You Spare a Paradigm? (Or Was Anybody Ever a Realist?)" by Peter D. Feaver et al (2000). International Security 25:1.

2. "I Exist; Therefore I Deter" by Lawrence Freedman (1988). International Security 13:1.

3. "Anarchy is what states make of it: The social construction of power politics" by Alexander Wendt (1992). International Organization 46:2.

4. "Kant or Cant: The Myth of the Democratic Peace" by Christopher Layne (1994). International Security 19:2.

5. "Chain gangs and passed bucks: Predicting alliance patterns in multipolarity" by Thomas J. Christensen and Jack Snyder (1990). International Organization 44:2.

Now that I look at that list, I'm pissed off that the entire thing comes from just two journals. But whatever.

I Love Boriss163

ahsanib@gmail.com (Ahsan) — Tue, 27 Oct 2009 00:31:00 +0000

Who the hell, you may ask, is Boriss163? He is the man behind the greatest playlist in Youtube history. He is the man who has compiled every single goal from Barcelona's season last year, all one hundred and fifty nine of them. It amounts to over three hours of coverage. And he doesn't just provide highlights, but he does a masterful job in the production, with great soundtracks interspersed with commentary. For the big games, he shows more than just the goals, weaving a story together of a truly historic season.

If you don't have the time or the inclination to start from the beginning, where he shows snippets from the disastrous 2007-08 season and Pep being signed by Joan Laporta, you should at least watch the following. First, the second El Clasico, the one at the Bernabeu. You may recall that Real scored twice, and each time Barca responded with three goals.

Here's the first half. More than the goals, please watch the move that begins at about 6:45 in the video. It doesn't result in a goal, but it was undoubtedly the move of the season from my perspective. It takes six players, nine passes and less than thirty seconds to get from their six-yard box to Real's. And the ball never leaves the ground.

And here's the second half:

Here's the second leg against Chelsea. My favorite bit is this: after Guardiola runs down the touchline like a madman to celebrate the Iniesta goal, you see the veteran Sylvinho reminding him to make defensive substitutions (recall, Barca were playing with ten men and two and a half defenders at this point). Hilarious. Zeyd, you can look away now.

And here is the three part highlights package of the CL final in Rome against United. Again, my favorite moment wasn't a goal. It was the "You better not fuck with my captain again, you over-gelled STD-carrying fuck" address Xavi delivered to Ronaldo.

Blood Thicker Than Water?

ahsanib@gmail.com (Ahsan) — Mon, 26 Oct 2009 20:12:00 +0000

Not when the CIA is involved.

The Difficulties In Being A Liberal In Pakistan

ahsanib@gmail.com (Ahsan) — Sun, 25 Oct 2009 22:48:00 +0000

Via Rabia, who writes about a show on Dawn News where Nadeem Paracha argued against Zaid Hamid on conspiracy theories (without ever actually talking directly to him; perhaps this is part of Dawn's campaign to revolutionize journalism -- a debate without debating!), I came across this post on Paracha's blog. There's a lot worthy of note in the post, but the portion I wanted to highlight was the reaction he got from emailers:

Before I use this modest space to finally answer Mr. Hamid’s claims punch by punch, I would also like to share a fraction of the tons of hate mail I started receiving the evening after the show was first aired. I have selected portions of a few such emails (out of about – and so far – 197!).

Example one: ‘Dear Mr. Paracha, there is now no doubt that you are working for the CIA. You should be ashamed of defending Zionist lobbying and America. You should be kicked out of Pakistan and sent to Israel.’

Example two: ‘Paracha, how can you be a journalist and have such a big house? The answer is simple: You are CIA funded journalist.’

Example three: ‘Paracha, Zaid Hamid slapped you left, right and centre on the show, you pseudo-intellectual. There is no shortage of people like you in Pakistan. People like you have occupied important positions in our society and are given 90-95 per cent of media coverage. We are with Zaid Hamid and inshallah we will succeed.’

Example four: ‘NFP, you are a slave to the west and working against the interests of Pakistan by attacking patriots like Zaid Hamid. It is clear you and the newspaper you write for is being funded by Israeli and Indian agencies. Better shape up or we will ship you out.’

Example five: ‘Paracha Sahib, you have been trying to propagate your Yahoodi [Jewish], Hindu and Christian masters’ rotten and obsolete ideas of ‘freedom’ and ‘secular liberalism’ and kafirana [heretical] Socialism. But people like Zaid Hamid will never let Godless men like you succeed.’

He says he received one hundred and ninety seven emails to that effect, and frankly I have little reason to doubt him. I want to make a couple of quick points about this.

First, it is no coincidence that the people who espouse the most hateful and nonsensical political views are also the most hateful and nonsensical in their interactions with others. There are very few extreme right-wingers/uber-religio-nationalists who can express themselves in a respectful way, even when they disagree with you. I've experienced some of this myself, but obviously not on the same level as someone who writes for the most widely read English newspaper in Pakistan.

Second, every time I read emails/comments like these, I gain greater appreciation for Irfan Hussain. Many people agree with Hussain's views and many people disagree with his views, but say this for him: he has not backed off. He has continued (in my opinion) to be one of the sanest and rational voices in the Pakistani punditocracy. I am sure that he must receive, quite literally, hundreds of hateful emails every week from the rabidly hateful people that make up his readership. And yet it appears, on the surface at least, that it matters little to him -- he has not tempered his views in the slightest, and keeps taking on the most reactionary elements within our society with aplomb.

Third, liberals in Pakistan are always being defensive, mainly because we're vastly outnumbered, but in actual fact -- on the empirics -- we've been right about most everything. Liberals were the first to wake up to talk about the dangers of the Taliban, about five years before the rest of the country decided to join us. In the 1990s, liberals were the ones who questioned our Kashmir strategy and support for militant groups. If liberals' advice on things like blasphemy and rape laws was actually followed, many fewer people would have lost their lives to violence. So across the spectrum, on the biggest issues in domestic and foreign policy, liberals are right, but treated as if they're wrong, stupid, traitorous, foreign agents, slaves to the west and god knows what else. Which is a pretty strange state of affairs, you have to admit.

If You're Going To Read One Thing This Weekend, Make It Cyril Almeida's Latest Column

ahsanib@gmail.com (Ahsan) — Sun, 25 Oct 2009 05:55:00 +0000

Normally, Cyril's columns are understated and dispassionate. Not this time. Read this. Just trust me.

Interview With Minnesota Public Radio

ahsanib@gmail.com (Ahsan) — Fri, 23 Oct 2009 23:44:00 +0000

I had a quick chat with Jeff Horwich of MPR yesterday on the Taliban and the current war. They edited the segment considerably, to make me sound less stupid -- though I suppose you will be the judge of that. There is one bit, though, where they edited it such that I sound quite incoherent. See if you can figure out where.

Why Has Karachi Been Able To Escape The Violence Directed Against The Rest Of The Country?

ahsanib@gmail.com (Ahsan) — Fri, 23 Oct 2009 05:55:00 +0000

As news of yet another terrorist attack, this time directed at the Air Force complex at Kamra, trickles in, one trend in the recent violence deserves scrutiny: why has there been such little violence in Karachi?

First, some background. Karachi has always been Pakistan's most violent city, but the violence it has experienced has tended to be of three kinds, all very different from what the country is currently experiencing. First, inter-ethnic violence between Mohajirs and Sindhis on the one hand, and Mohajirs and Pasthuns on the other. This was the pattern of violence that started in the 1970s in the former case, in the 1980s in the latter case, and has sporadically spiked since then but by and large has remained dormant.

Second, violence between the MQM -- the party largely representing the interests of middle class Mohajirs in urban Sindh -- and its breakaway faction (called MQM Haqiqi), as well as state security forces in the mid 1990s. This form of violence too has petered out, as the MQM becomes mainstream and an acceptable player on Pakistan's political scene.

The third type of violence has been sectarian violence, between Sunni and Shia militant groups.

By contrast, the rest of the country finds itself squarely in the middle of Taliban violence, which is wrapped up in geopolitical considerations, as well as control for the state. All forms of terrorist violence, but particularly suicide attacks, have been aimed at both civilians and agents of the state -- but have been geographically circumscribed in FATA, the NWFP and Punjab. So what gives?

The piece linked above, by Nadeem Paracha, claims it has something to do with the demographic and political balance in the city -- where different ethnic groups and parties maintain a relative balance of power. I'm not so sure. I think his arguments speak to these organizations not being able to establish a base of operations in Karachi, but that is different from saying that they are unable to launch attacks in Karachi.

To be honest, I really have no clue as to how Karachi has remained relatively peaceful in all this. I have a few hypotheses though:

1. The militants have changed their focus from civilians targets to state targets. Over the last three weeks, the majority of attacks have taken place at military and police headquarters or offices or training centers. The heart of the state, meanwhile, exists in northern Punjab and the center of gravity of the military is also in the NWFP/Punjab arc. As such, Karachi has managed to avoid violence by simple virtue of the fact that it's far away from the things that matter to the militants. So it's about military strategy.

2. Security forces and the police are doing a better job in Karachi than they are in the rest of the country. Attacks aren't taking place because they are being caught before the implementation stage. So it's about the effectiveness of the state.

3. The MQM -- the party with the strongest secular (good) and anti-Pashtun (bad) credentials in the country -- takes the Taliban threat more seriously than anyone else. And as they are in control of Karachi, they are most concerned with taking strong and effective action against militant groups, not allowing them the freedom to operate. Their aggression delivers results for Karachiites. So it's about local politics.

Any ideas, readers?

Nawaz Sharif Accepts Zardari's Invitation To Dinner

ahsanib@gmail.com (Ahsan) — Fri, 23 Oct 2009 05:50:00 +0000

Of course he did. What, you think Nawaz Sharif is going to say no to a free meal?

The Good News Is That No One Died In Today's Earthquake. The Bad News Is That Imran Farhat Is Back.

ahsanib@gmail.com (Ahsan) — Fri, 23 Oct 2009 02:26:00 +0000

As our erstwhile captain might say, furst aaf aall, thanks be to God. Seriously, it's been a long time since Pakistan caught a break, but it appears that today's earthquake resulted in no loss of human life. A bit surprising, given it was a fairly strong one, but there you go.

On the other hand, this idiot is back.

I suppose one absolutely shit opener called Imran isn't enough for our selectors. So I can definitely see the logic in recalling him. But not only have they recalled this idiot, but they've recalled him for all three formats for the tour against NZ. Unbelievable.

Of course, we know why this has actually happened. You know, don't you? If you don't, let me jog your memory. This was the announcement on Cricinfo on the new selection committee being formed during the summer:

Former Pakistan spinner Iqbal Qasim has been appointed chairman of a new, restructured national selection commitee. Former Test cricketers Saleem Jaffer, Ijaz Ahmed, Azhar Khan and Mohammad Ilyas have also been appointed members.

Read that last name again. Ring a bell? He's Imran's father in law, who once lost his shit at the late Bob Woolmer in public, and claimed that the former coach was out to destroy Pakistan cricket (because his idiot son-in-law hadn't been selected). A couple of years later, he went after the then selection committee (because his idiot son-in-law hadn't been selected).

Well, guess what. Now that he's a member of the selection committee, his idiot son-in-law has been selected. What a fucking coincidence.

How bad is this? Honestly, I think it's worse than the PPP's nepotism vis-a-vis giving Bilawal the party. Why? Let me give you three reasons:

1. Bilawal can't do any damage right now, only in twenty years when he's standing for elections. Imran Farhat will screw our chances against NZ in the present.

2. We don't expect anything from our government and politicians, so it doesn't matter if they suck. But we actually have hope for our cricket team. Ergo, when they disappoint, it hurts more.

3. Bilawal's ascension to power will, in a way, be kind of funny in a tragicomic sense (in this respect, he actually resembles Imran Nazir, whose batting is always good for a few laughs). Imran Farhat opening will not be funny at all. It will be torture. His failings are more visceral and less amusing than anyone else's.

Anyway, I'm also pissed that I'm going to have to come with an epithet for Farhat for my liveblogging, since "Crazy Imran" is already taken by his namesake Nazir. I think "Really Fucking Stupid Imran" will have to do, though it'll be hard to keep typing that when he's batting. Fortunately, I can rest secure in the knowledge that I won't have to type long.

Photo credit: Cricinfo.

And Now An Earthquake

ahsanib@gmail.com (Ahsan) — Thu, 22 Oct 2009 20:35:00 +0000

As if everything else wasn't enough, I just read that Pakistan (and Afghanistan) have been hit by an earthquake. Readers are requested to add details in the comments as they learn of them.