Business Recorder Editorial January 28, 2021

Pakistan-US relations

 

Foreign Minister Shah Mahmood Qureshi had a telephone conversation on January 25, 2021 with his Afghan counterpart Hanif Atmar regarding, among other things, the intra-Afghan dialogue. Media reports hint at this call emanating from concern regarding new US National Security Adviser (NSA) Jake Sullivan’s talk with Afghan NSA Hamdullah Mohib, in which the former hinted at the review of the deal with the Taliban struck in Doha on February 29, 2020. Shah Mahmood Qureshi reiterated Pakistan’s view that the intra-Afghan dialogue had the potential to bring about a reduction in the increasing violence in Afghanistan and a possible ceasefire. But the intra-Afghan dialogue’s second round since the last three weeks appears to be going nowhere, so much so that not even the agenda for negotiations has been finalised. Afghans generally are reported to be losing hope, with President Ashraf Ghani and officials publicly expressing misgivings. Afghan Foreign Minister Hanif Atmar had called for pressurising the Taliban after the conversation between the US and Afghan NSAs. Media reports speculate that the Taliban’s increased attacks and violence are meant to strengthen their hand in negotiations, meaning their accepting a ceasefire seems unlikely as they fear they would lose their battlefield leverage. One fallout of these developments is that the Afghan President’s Office spokesperson Sediq Sediqqi stated that the agreement failed to deliver since the Taliban did not live up to their commitments. Reportedly 600 freed Taliban prisoners have been rearrested by the Afghan government on the plea that they had returned to the battlefield.

Pakistan’s ‘troika’ of the Prime Minister, COAS and ISI chief have also met to review the implications of the announcement of the US review. It goes without saying that Pakistan can ill afford to ignore or annoy the US. Despite managing to soften former US President Donald Trump’s initial hostility to Pakistan for its alleged ‘double dealing’ by facilitating the Doha agreement, a new US administration always engenders speculation about how Pakistan-US relations will now play out. Despite China’s firm support, Pakistan cannot ignore the leverage the US enjoys in terms of being Pakistan’s biggest export market, deciding force in the international finance institutions such as the Bretton Woods twins and the Asian Development Bank, on all of whom Pakistan crucially depends for aid and loans, and last but not least the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) sword the US dangles over our heads. So while Pakistan must engage intelligently with Washington to help it pull its chestnuts out of the Afghan fire without too much further humiliation, its incomplete implementation of the FATF plan can impact its hopes for the US to pressurise India on its actions in illegally Indian Occupied Jammu and Kashmir. The other factor that militates against the Biden administration leaning too heavily on New Delhi in this regard despite Biden’s and the Democratic Party’s greater interest in human rights issues is the abiding hope in Washington to use India against China in the US’s effort to curb Beijing’s growing global influence. Pakistan must root its relations with the US in an intelligent diplomatic balance between Washington and Beijing. Difficult as this sounds in the middle of growing tensions between the US and China (the latest development being warlike moves by both sides in and around Taiwan), it is in our interests to handle both sets of relations with care so Pakistan’s best interests are served without alienating or annoying either Washington or Beijing. A delicate task indeed, in which helping the US withdraw as honourably as possible from Afghanistan while facilitating a negotiated political intra-Afghan settlement could be a trump card, and adhering to the FATF conditions to get off its grey list would lubricate Washington looking at Pakistan with a positive attitude since it would remove any suspicion of supporting terrorist groups against India. These are the current uncertainties, reefs and shoals in our foreign policy that must be carefully calibrated and navigated to ensure the best outcome for Pakistan.

Business Recorder Column January 26, 2021

Afghanistan ‘peace’ deal review

 

Rashed Rahman

 

With the change from Donald Trump to Joe Biden at the helm in Washington, the expected review if not reversal of many of the former’s policy choices is underway. One such policy is Trump’s ‘peace’ deal with the Taliban, signed in Doha, Qatar on January 29, 2020. It now appears that the terms of this agreement favoured the Taliban more than Washington. The US committed to withdrawing its troops incrementally from its longest running and seemingly unwinnable foreign war, finally by May 2021. The Taliban committed to never again allowing their soil to be used by terrorists against the US or its interests. This could be read of course as founded on the presence of al Qaeda in Afghanistan while the Taliban were in power from 1996 to 2001 and which led to 9/11. The other terms accepted by the Taliban were to reduce violence and engage in meaningful negotiations with the Afghan government for a political solution to the conflict.

While the first condition of not allowing terrorists to use Afghan soil will only be tested if and when the Taliban are in power again, the other two have already floundered on the Taliban’s partisan interpretation to their own advantage. Attacks against US and other foreign troops have ceased since the Doha agreement, but have multiplied and taken on even more virulent forms against the Afghan government (including the recent assassination of Afghan women judges in Kabul). Treating the intra-Afghan talks with what they hitherto described as a ‘puppet’ government in Kabul in the classic ‘talking while fighting’ mode, the Taliban have refused to relent on their hardline, fanatical Islamism, which has little if anything to do with the message, letter or spirit of Islam. This has translated into an impasse in the intra-Afghan dialogue, under cover of which the Taliban have inflicted more pain and bloodshed on the hapless Afghan government and people.

The new US National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan and Secretary of State Antony Blinken have stated that the Biden administration intends to review the accord with the Taliban to see if the latter was adhering to its terms as described above. Not that the new administration is not of a mind to end Washington’s unending Afghan nightmare that has cost, according to The New York Times,$ 5.9 trillion and 2,000 US troops’ lives (and counting). But the review/revisit of the accord implies that the Biden administration is wary of a post-US withdrawal rollover of the Afghan government by their Taliban foes. This may lead the US to insist on stricter compliance by the Taliban to what they have agreed on pain of slowing down (or even, shivers in Washington notwithstanding), stopping the withdrawal of the remaining 2,500 US troops or reversing it.

Whether the political will still exists in the US for this course seems unlikely. However, on present trends it appears almost inevitable that final US withdrawal will result in a continuation of the civil war, in which the Taliban appear to have an upper hand. Pakistani officials cannot suppress their triumphalism (and even perhaps smirks) at having bested the superpower through their support to the Taliban (just as they did to the Soviet Union with support to the Mujahideen). Media reports say such officials are not surprised by the announcement of the US review, but dismiss it as Washington has little room for manoeuvre, describing the US move as unlikely to result in drastic changes to the Doha accord and more likely to prove ‘cosmetic’.

It would be unwise for Pakistan to rub any more salt into the US’s wounds. Empires have long memories. The Soviet Union collapsed within two years of its withdrawal from Afghanistan in 1989 and its central and largest successor Russia eventually overcame its predecessor state’s humiliation in the interests of its new position and status in the world, including outreach to, and cooperation and friendly relations with Pakistan. That does not apply to the US. If incoming Secretary of Defence General (retd) Lloyd Austin’s statement the other day is taken into account that Pentagon-GHQ relations would continue if not be enhanced despite the Trump administration’s security and defence assistance suspension, sweetened by the carrot dangled of a resumption of military training for Pakistani officers, it seems obvious that the US desires a continuation of the regional ‘policeman’s’ role for arguably one of the largest, battle hardened, professional Muslim armies in the theatre, as in the past. With China stepping in as the default supplier of state-of-the-art weaponry to the Pakistani military, the Pentagon wishes to compete peacefully with Beijing in keeping the Pakistani military on its side.

While this may be good news for the Pakistani military, it offers precious little for the civilian citizens of Pakistan. They are likely to bear the brunt of the ‘revenge’ of Washington for its Afghan humiliation through the levers of the US being Pakistan’s largest textile and other exports markets, Islamabad’s need to have the international financial institutions such as the IMF, World Bank and Asian Development Bank (in which the US largely holds sway) supportive of its floundering economy, with last but not least the sword of the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) dangling over our heads.

This second ‘triumph’ in Afghanistan may end up costing the people of Pakistan heavily, who had nothing to do with Washington’s debacle. The real authors of the US’s humiliation seem on the other hand about to be ‘rewarded’ for greater geopolitical and strategic considerations.

 

 

 

 

 

rashed.rahman1@gmail.com

rashed-rahman.blogspot.com

Business Recorder Editorial January 26, 2021

Broadsheet conundrum

 

To add one more item to the long and growing list of issues of discord between the government and the opposition, the Broadsheet conundrum has the two sides of the political divide at loggerheads again. This time the controversy revolves around the appointment of retired Supreme Court Justice Azmat Saeed as the head of the inquiry commission on the Broadsheet scandal. Predictably, the two sides are resorting to objections, arguments, counter-arguments and even jibes at each other on the issue. The opposition’s rejection of Justice (retd) Azmat Saeed’s appointment is founded on a perceived ‘conflict of interest’ since he was the National Accountability Bureau’s (NAB’s) deputy prosecutor general at the time when the NAB-Broadsheet agreement was signed in 2000, with Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N) spokesperson Maryam Aurangzeb alleging that he was one of the negotiators in the deal and in his then capacity had made out cases against Nawaz Sharif. Second, he was a member of the Supreme Court bench in the Panama Papers case that found Nawaz Sharif guilty and disqualified him. Third, that after retirement Justice Azmat Saeed was appointed by Prime Minister (PM) Imran Khan on the board of governors of Shaukat Khanum Memorial Hospital. On this basis, the opposition advises Justice Azmat Saeed to recuse himself from the position of heading the inquiry committee on the Broadsheet scandal. The government on the other hand, starting with the PM and working our way down the list of usual ministers who speak for the government, insists it has nothing to do with the Broadsheet issue and castigates the opposition for desiring the appointment of a judge expected to favour them since, according to Information Minister Sheikh Rashid, the Broadsheet inquiry will prove a ‘Panamagate 2.0’ for them. No ‘bad’ intention informs the appointment, the government side attempts to clarify. The opposition on the other hand demands an undisputed, non-controversial person to head the inquiry commission, whose proceedings should be made public as the inquiry commissions law carries such a provision. The opposition fears the inquiry may be used to tarnish it further. Things are at such a pretty pass that the government’s outreach to the opposition to cooperate in the smooth running of parliament and legislation has been turned down by the opposition that has voiced the apprehension that this move is only meant to prevent the opposition from taking the Pakistan Tehreek-i-Insaaf (PTI) government to task on precisely the Broadsheet scandal. True or not, this episode underlines the parlous state of hostility that befogs the political landscape and renders even a seemingly acceptable and rational proposal suspect.

In all this to and fro, thrust and parry between the government and the opposition over Justice (retd) Azmat Saeed’s appointment, the Broadsheet scandal itself has been relegated to the back burner. From media reports so far on the conundrum, it appears to be a long and sorry saga of shady deals with a company whose antecedents and competence for the task of tracing illegal assets abroad belonging to Pakistanis can only be considered highly exaggerated, if not blatantly untrue. The agreement with Broadsheet was apparently first signed with a company by that name registered in the US. However, that company soon after went into liquidation. Then an agreement was signed with Kaveh Moussavi’s Broadsheet LLC, incorporated shortly before in the Isle of Man. Strangely, the agreement offered Mr Moussavi a share of undeclared assets discovered by NAB even without any help from Broadsheet. Moussavi himself has a chequered past, including a jail term. Whoever was handling the affair deserves to be hauled over the coals for causing a colossal loss to Pakistan, including the UK arbitration court’s $ 28 million deducted from the Pakistani High Commission in London’s bank account. Moussavi, since the court verdict, has been in the media almost constantly spinning tales of actual or attempted bribery, implicating indirectly thereby the present government. Amidst all this alleged skullduggery, Justice (retd) Azmat Saeed should perhaps recall the long established practice of a judge in whom no-confidence is expressed by any party before him in judicial proceedings to recuse himself from the case. It may therefore, given the controversy that has been aroused by his appointment, be best for his repute as well as the credibility of the inquiry exercise itself for him to recuse himself from these proceedings.

My Interview on the Pakistani Left to Sukhan TV

Link to my interview on Sukhan TV on the Pakistani Left: https://youtu.be/A56GNkOehEQ 

Business Recorder Editorial January 22, 2021

PDM’s ECP rally

 

The Pakistan Democratic Movement’s (PDM’s) rally before the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) offices in Islamabad on January 19, 2021 was notable for a number of reasons. First and foremost, the turnout was less than impressive. This may partly be attributed to the absence of Pakistan People’s Party (PPP) chairperson Bilawal Bhutto Zardari, who excused himself for having prior commitments in Sindh. His absence resulted in a thin appearance of the PPP supporters, thus requiring the Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N) vice president Maryam Nawaz and the Jamiat-i-Ulema-i-Islam-Fazl (JUI-F) chief Maulana Fazlur Rehman to carry a heavier burden at the rally. Fiery speeches by these two opposition leaders castigated Prime Minister Imran Khan and his government on the foreign funding case that has remained in the doldrums with the ECP for the last seven years. Not just this, in a reversal of the ‘patriot’ card much in vogue with the government these days, the PDM leaders accused Imran Khan of receiving funding from India and Israel. In the opposition’s first show in Islamabad, the PDM demanded the ECP decide the foreign funding case against the Pakistan Tehreek-i-Insaaf (PTI) immediately when there appeared no cogent reason why the case had been dragged along for so long. Maryam Nawaz found laughable Imran Khan’s defence offered the other day that he had no knowledge of the source of funding for PTI and the party’s two ‘agents’ abroad had this information. In a play on words, she asked: “Who were the agents who had installed Imran Khan in power?” She also recalled former Chief Justice of Pakistan Saqib Nisar’s clean chit to Imran Khan as ‘sadiqand ameen’ (honest) by blaming the ‘agents’ again who helped obtain this certificate. She went on to describe the PTI foreign funding case as the biggest fraud in Pakistan’s history. Recalling the track record, she said cases against Nawaz Sharif were expedited to have him disqualified and condemned, but the ECP had only held 70 hearings in the case in seven years. She underlined Imran Khan’s efforts, legal and other, to have the proceedings halted on the basis that the case did not fall under the purview of the ECP, and/or to keep the proceedings secret. Further, she said the scrutiny committee set up by the ECP could not complete its investigations despite the passage of three years. The State Bank of Pakistan, Maryam alleged, had discovered 23 secret accounts of the PTI operated under Imran Khan’s signature. Lastly, she asked the ECP why, when its ‘hands and feet were tied’ during the 2018 elections, did it not speak out.

The PDM’s fire and brimstone thrown at Imran Khan did not seem to have fazed the government, which wisely had allowed the PDM rally without hindrance. Interior Minister Shaikh Rashid and other ministers predictably described the rally as a ‘flop’. The usual (and by now wearying) rhetoric on both sides notwithstanding, the questions raised at the PDM rally deserve a fitting response. If, however, the ECP’s statement in response to the rally is perused, it seems more of a mea culpa than a credible explanation for the extraordinary delay in concluding the case. The ECP has more and more to answer for with each passing day, even if the controversial 2018 elections are put aside for the moment. The PTI funding case and that election have eroded the image and credibility of the ECP near to breaking point. In another twist to this saga, while the PDM was protesting outside the ECP offices, the ECP scrutiny committee, according to media reports, walked out while conducting a hearing on the matter when the complainant Akbar Babar voiced no confidence in the committee after telling Babar “you don’t trust us so there is no point in our sitting here and hearing this case anymore”. In its own interest, as much as the interests of transparency, democracy and the country, the ECP needs to decide the foreign funding case post haste. If it manages this at least, there may be room for allowing the present ECP setup to conduct the upcoming Senate and local elections. If not, not only these elections, arguably the next general elections scheduled for 2023 will come under a cloud and could provoke a legitimacy and political crisis of unimaginable proportions.

Business Recorder Editorial January 19, 2021

Police reforms: better late than never

 

Prime Minister Imran Khan, while chairing a meeting in Lahore on January 15, 2021 on police performance and reforms, stressed the use of modern technology to control crime. He directed Inspector General (IG) Police Punjab to utilise all resources to protect the life and property of citizens. Imran Khan regretted political appointments in the police in the past, which adversely affected its performance. Reiterating the principle that no one is above the law, he advised the police not to succumb to any influence or pressure and argued that police performance on the basis of equality before the law would lead to citizens’ satisfaction. Last but not least, Imran Khan asked the IG Punjab to focus on improving the image of his force.

The prime minister’s intentions may be good, but, as the old adage goes, the road to hell is paved with those. Unlike his general confession the other day that he and his Pakistan Tehreek-i-Insaaf (PTI) team were not adequately prepared when they came to power, the PTI provincial government in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (KP) during 2013-18 earned kudos for its police’s performance against terrorism and crime. On that basis, Nasir Durrani, a former IG KP, was inducted as chief of a police reforms commission in Punjab soon after the PTI came to power in 2018, but resigned in October of that year, clearly unhappy at the ‘revolving door’ of appointments and removal of high police officials in Punjab, rendering him unable to do justice to his assignment. That ‘revolving door’ continues to operate ever since under Chief Minister Usman Buzdar, weakening continuity of command, let alone leaving little if any room for reforms.

It would not be out of place to mention that our police, including that of Punjab, owes its historical roots to British colonial times. Although the foreign occupiers set up the police with the main aim of suppressing any native resistance to their rule, even the colonial rulers imposed an executive magistracy over the police as a restraining factor. The use of force, whether a lathicharge or opening fire, could not be resorted to without the executive magistrate in control’s order. Perhaps in their wisdom our foreign rulers realised the negative consequences of allowing the police a free hand without restraint or fetters. We inherited that system at independence, but in 2002, military ruler Pervez Musharraf’s regime enacted the Police Ordinance 2002, whose abolition of the executive magistracy controlling the police was backed up by a Supreme Court decision stressing the constitutional division of powers and functions of the executive and judiciary. The end result was a police off the leash. This may have been an unintended consequence, but if the framers of the Police Ordinance 2002 had taken a little time to acquaint themselves (if not refresh their memories) with the character of our police, perhaps they would have hesitated or sought some alternative to restrain what is essentially a corrupt, brutal force (individual honourable exceptions notwithstanding). Who, after all, is not aware of the so-called thana(police station) culture; the resort, more often than not, by the police to extracting bribes and indulging in extortion; the ‘normal’ investigative technique of torture; in recent times the incremental militarisation of the police because of the threat of terrorism, which has turned it, on top of everything else, into a trigger-happy menace? The recent examples of Osama Satti’s murder in Islamabad, former police officer Rao Anwar’s alleged 400 ‘encounter’ victims in Karachi, the terrible killing of innocents in Sahiwal by the Counter Terrorism Department point to a widespread if not universal malaise associated with the police. How can this ‘image’ be improved, as the prime minister has instructed, without changing these facts on the ground and transforming the brutal and corrupt culture that permeates the police? If Imran Khan is serious about this and means what he says, the appointment of officers such as Nasir Durrani to oversee the complete overhaul of the deeply entrenched negative culture and practices of the police may be a sine qua non, but will still remain an uphill task.

Business Recorder Editorial January 15, 2021

Ordinances galore

 

The Senate session on January 12, 2021 witnessed a heated debate between the two sides of the aisle on the propensity of the Pakistan Tehreek-i-Insaaf (PTI) government to rely for legislation on presidential Ordinances while bypassing parliament. The opposition argued that this trend indicated that the government wanted to take the country towards a presidential system. They specifically opposed the Pakistan Island Development Authority Ordinance (PIDAO), warning that any attempt to grab the assets of the smaller provinces would be forcefully opposed by the people. Parliamentary leader of the Pakistan People’s Party (PPP) in the Senate Sherry Rehman said Pakistan needs to be run by parliament but this government seems bent on ignoring it. She claimed this government had set a record of passing around 40 Ordinances and 38 Bills. She had a very pertinent point to make when she asked why the treasury benches were defending Ordinances like the PIDAO that had expired. To Sherry Rehman, the government’s ‘non-serious’ attitude towards parliament was shocking. She asked and then herself supplied the answer to her question how many times the prime minister had attended a Senate session: hardly once. PPP’s Senator Raza Rabbani weighed in with the alarming statement that parliament is dead because the government neither addresses public interest issues in parliament nor is ready to take either house into confidence. From the government side, Senator Waleed Iqbal attempted to puncture the opposition’s case by quoting figures from the past showing the late Benazir Bhutto promulgated 357 Ordinances in three years in her second term while today’s ‘conscientious objector’ Senator Raza Rabbani was law minister. He went on to assert that 26 Ordinances per year on average had been promulgated during the divided 10-year rule of the PPP and Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz. On the other hand, he continued, the PTI government had promulgated less than 20 Ordinances per year on average in less than three years of its five-year ongoing tenure. Minister of State for Parliamentary Affairs Ali Mohammad Khan objected to the opposition’s use of the words ‘subversion and usurpation’ of parliamentary rights and posed the rhetorical question why, if the opposition considered it subversion, they did not remove Article 89 of the Constitution that empowers the president to issue Ordinances. He failed, however, to elucidate the conditionalities embedded in Article 89 for resort to Ordinances: when parliament is not in session (breached with monotonous regularity by this government) and there is a dire need or emergency that cannot wait for the normal legislative process. While Senator Raza Rabbani disputed the figure of 357 Ordinances promulgated by the late Benazir Bhutto, this failed to get to the heart of the issue.

The fact is that the opposition, judging from the track record, is in this matter a case of the pot calling the kettle black. Without getting bogged down in the exchanges about the actual number of Ordinances promulgated by either side, it has to be admitted in all honesty that no one’s record in this regard is a clean slate. Governments, past and present, have seen Ordinances as a convenient and easy way to avoid the comparatively lengthy process of normal legislation through parliament. However, the whole case for such Ordinances falls flat when it is considered that Ordinances normally have a limited shelf life (a minimum of four months in most cases) and their lapsing requires either a repromulgation (raising more problems and conflict) or returning to the legislative process per se. Second, what Ordinances, deliberately or inadvertently, do is obviate parliamentary debate and discussion, in which the thrust and parry by both sides may help to inform or round out the government’s own understanding of the issues. After all, no one should claim infallibity. Last but not least, Ordinances emasculate the role and importance of parliament, which is a serious blow to the desire for a democratic order. The PTI government’s insecurity regarding its razor-thin majority in the National Assembly and its minority in the Senate may be feeding into its current practices. But Law Minister Farrogh Naseem’s argument that these difficulties impose the need to call a joint session of parliament for each Bill does not make sense. The fact is that a joint session in principle is nothing to object to. Second, even a resort to one may not help the government, given its precarious standing in both houses. The irreducible need appears to be a consensus on either doing away with Article 89 or amending it to provide safeguards against its wholesale use without necessary justification. But that too appears beyond the present dispensation, given the government’s inability to reach out to the opposition.

Business Recorder Editorial January 14, 2021

Senate polls reference

 

The President’s reference to the Supreme Court seeking its opinion on the mode of holding the Senate elections seems set for a protracted legal battle, judging from the synopses and arguments presented so far in the apex court. For example, the Jamiat-i-Ulema-i-Islam-Fazl has opposed the reference seeking open balloting for the coming Senate elections, arguing that it has not been moved in good faith and was aimed at bypassing parliament. It further contends that the reference carries an inference that the Senate elections are not held under the Constitution but under the Elections Act 2017. Senator Raza Rabbani in his synopsis filed before the Supreme Court requests it to answer the reference in the negative since the Senate elections are, in fact, held under the Constitution (implying a secret ballot). Advocate Mudassir Hasan too has opposed the reference, arguing that it did not reflect bona fide intentions since it was moved at a time when the 26^thConstitutional Amendment related to the issue was pending before Parliament. On the other hand, Advocate Qamar Afzal has supported the reference. Both these gentlemen have requested they be made party to the proceedings in the Supreme Court. Sindh Advocate General Salman Talibuddin has sought one week to submit the response of the Sindh government. Attorney General Khalid Jawed Khan has argued before the Supreme Court that through this reference, the President has requested interpretation of the Constitution with emphasis on Article 226, a task that falls within the exclusive domain of the apex court. Further, that the specific question for consideration is the scope of Article 226 and whether the reference to “elections under the Constitution” in it includes elections for Senators that are to be conducted under the Elections Act 2017. Arguing for the admissibility of the reference, the Attorney General referred to past judgements of the Supreme Court and other courts to underline that the opinion of the apex court on a reference does indeed have a binding effect. The Supreme Court, he went on, also ruled that no embargo could be placed on the President’s authority to seek the court’s advice on a question of law.

The arcane legal and constitutional arguments are of course for the Supreme Court to examine. However, it does appear somewhat strange that a government that has moved the 26^thConstitutional Amendment and a Bill to amend the Elections Act 2017, both aimed at open balloting for Senate elections, appears to have ‘abandoned’ these in favour of the reference to the Supreme Court. One possible reason for this may be that the government does not enjoy a two-thirds majority in Parliament, which rules out the passage of any constitutional amendment, nor enjoys good relations with the opposition, a necessary condition perhaps for even ordinary legislation such as the amendment to the Elections Act 2017. It may also be kept in mind that the Senate elections are looming in March 2021, if not earlier, as the government would prefer. Chief Justice of Pakistan Gulzar Ahmed stated after hearing the detailed submissions of the Attorney General that the issue would need to be addressed keeping in mind the whole scheme of the Constitution, not bits and pieces. Beyond this, it is simply inexplicable how the Senate elections held under proportional representation through a single transferable vote can be conducted through open balloting or a show of hands. Observers are still puzzled why the government is in such a hurry to hold the Senate elections earlier than March and that too through open balloting. Whatever their considerations, it must be kept in mind that democracy requires careful nurturing, even in an established and mature democracy like the US, as outgoing President Donald Trump’s shenanigans regarding storming of Capitol Hill by his supporters indicates. For a democracy still to sink firm roots such as ours, greater care is required that we follow the letter and spirit of the law and Constitution if a better outcome is sought free of personal or partisan vested interest.

Business Recorder Column January 12, 2021

Darkness descends

 

Rashed Rahman

 

The people of Pakistan had barely had opportunity to recover their breath after the horrendous massacre of 11 Hazara coal miners in Machh, Balochistan on January 3, 2021 and the insensitivity and callousness displayed by Imran Khan on the issue when, on the night of January 9-10, 2021, the whole country literally descended into darkness. Was this national power outage symbolic of the general trend of the country being plunged into a ‘no light at the end of the tunnel’ under the Pakistan Tehreek-i-Insaaf (PTI) government?

The government has, in time-honoured fashion, set up a four-man committee to investigate the unprecedented massive power breakdown. But even before this committee gets down to work, the blurry outlines of the origins and fallout of the outage are visible. It appears that ‘human error’ triggered the disaster. At least this is what media reports claim on the basis of ‘insider’ briefings. The Guddu Power Station apparently developed a fault, leading to a sudden loss of power, which then cascaded through the entire national grid, reducing the entire country to a dark and desolate hell. Seven employees of the Guddu Power Station have been suspended. The rapid spread of the outage has been ascribed to poor maintenance, leading to the subsequent failure of the protection system to respond. Reports say this underlines the mismanagement of the power sector by a government running it on an ad hoc, acting charge basis at the top for years. Even the power distribution companies (Discos) have been without regular chief executive officers for the last two and a half years. The National Transmission and Despatch Company (NTDC) has been in this state since July 2017 and the National Power Control Centre (NPCC) for more than a decade. The Central Power Generation Company (CPGC) that runs the Guddu Power Station hired a chief last year on a temporary basis from the private sector. Imran Khan’s reported annoyance at this situation shows he had no clue how the top tiers of the power sector were without permanent, appropriately appointed heads for years, including the two and a half years since he was ‘installed’ in office.

This is the third instance of such a breakdown since 2015. Latest reports say the large cities and towns have had their power restored (except for some local areas’ exception) but the smaller towns and rural areas continue to be treated, as usual, as children of a lesser god.

As to the long suffering Hazaras, they spent nearly a week in sub-zero temperatures in Quetta on the roads with the dead bodies of their loved ones, waiting for the high and mighty prime minister to deign to visit them. The ‘explanations’ (read gaffes) offered by Imran Khan for delaying his visit to the mourners made little if any sense. ‘Security’ of the prime minister was touted as one reason. The perplexed citizen would be within his/her rights to ask: if we cannot guarantee the safety and security of the highest office in the land, what will become of the rest of us? Then we heard that Imran Khan objected to being ‘blackmailed’ by the Hazara mourners to visit them before they would agree to bury their dead. Someone needs to explain to Imran Khan what ‘blackmail’ means. He thought the demand for his visit before burial would set a precedent for such incidents in future. One may be forgiven for asking: what were the so-called ‘blackmailers’ asking for? Some words of comfort from the prime minister in their hour of misery as balm for their wounds? The Hazaras know they would not get much more from the army of prime minister, federal ministers and the chief minister Balochistan. After all, they have been targeted by anti-Shia sectarian groups since 2000. The National Commission for Human Rights reported in 2018 that the Hazara community had lost 509 killed, 627 wounded in sectarian attacks in the last five years. Another independent study said 2,000 Hazaras had been killed. Even past words of comfort did not ease their pain or guarantee safety and security. Reportedly, 70,000 Hazaras have emigrated to safer climes while those left behind would leave if they could. Is this not an abject failure of the state to protect this vulnerable ethnic-religious minority?

The fact is that the misguided policy of waging the Afghan wars over the last 50 years through fanatical fundamentalist (now dubbed ‘terrorist’) groups spawned religious extremism and terrorism inside Pakistan. Despite the belated military operations against their base areas in erstwhile FATA, remnants fester inside our innards. The latest revelation is that the sectarian terrorist group Lashkar-e-Jhangvi has joined Islamic State (the latter’s seeming abundance of finances lubricating the ‘merger’) and carried out the Machh massacre.

Instead of introspecting on our past flawed policies that gave birth to such monsters, Imran Khan and everybody and his aunt in the power circles has ‘discovered’ the catch-all Indian basket to throw everything into. Not only does this play well with the ‘patriotic’ lobby, it ensures no one asks awkward questions about our responsibility for unleashing these monsters on the people of Pakistan in the first place. Language is now bent to this task. ‘Traitor’, ‘enemy agent’, etc, are bandied about in a latter day endorsement of the notion that the last refuge of the scoundrel is patriotism.

The power outage, mishandling of the Hazara tragedy, the gas and sugar crises, unemployment, inflation (particularly everyday food items): is this misgovernance or will a new terminology have to be invented to describe the performance since 2018 of this inept, imposed regime? Your guess is as good as mine.

 

 

 

 

 

rashed.rahman1@gmail.com

rashed-rahman.blogspot.com

The January 2021 issue of Pakistan Monthly Review is out

The January 2021 issue of Pakistan Monthly Review is out (link: pakistanmonthlyreview.com).

Contents:

1. From the Editor: Ring out the old, ring in the same.

2. Aqil Shah: Will Pakistan's Military Lose Its Grip on Power?

3. Karima Baloch: Aalmi Muashi Jang, Baloch Geographiai-o-Wasail ki Ahmiat aur Baloch Qaumi Tehreek par uske Asraat (Urdu).

4. Rashed Rahman: Bloody Birth of Bangladesh.

5. Manzurul Haq: Ravi River Project: Robin Hood in reverse?

6. Book Review: Dr Ali Khan reviews Dr Rosita Armytage: Big Capital in an Unequal World.

7. Prof Dr Maqsudul Hasan Nuri: Cuban-Soviet relations in Africa (1975-1980): 'Partner-proxy' relations: a theoretical debate – II.

Rashed Rahman

Editor, Pakistan Monthly Review

Director, Research and Publication Centre

Business Recorder Editorial January 1, 2021

PDM’s prospects

 

The Pakistan Democratic Movement was always inherently a diverse and disparate conglomerate of 11 parties united only on the single agenda of removing the Pakistan Tehreek-i-Insaaf government and persuading its establishment backers to accept the demand for fresh free and fair elections. However, as the Pakistan Democratic Movement’s campaign has played out in the form of rallies, it has become clear that this one-point agenda may not be enough. Even before a discussion on what the Pakistan Democratic Movement is offering the people if and when its constituent parties come to power, which despite the people’s concerns regarding inflation, unemployment, etc, suffers from the deficit of a programme with broad appeal, it is obvious that the main parties in the Pakistan Democratic Movement have differing perceptions, considerations, and even tactics and strategy. This reality became clear as daylight after the Pakistan People’s Party Central Executive Committee meeting on December 29, 2020. A host of speculative stories began to circulate about the outcome of this Central Executive Committee meeting immediately after it ended regarding the issue of en masse resignations from the Assemblies, participation in some looming by-elections, and engaging collectively as the Pakistan Democratic Movement in the Senate elections to prevent the Pakistan Tehreek-i-Insaaf government from gaining a majority in the upper house that would enable it to reverse, for example, the 18^thAmendment and the National Finance Commission Award that favours the provinces. However, when Pakistan People’s Party chairperson Bilawal Bhutto Zardari addressed a press conference after the Central Executive Committee conclave, some issues were clarified but not without leaving some anomalies unresolved. For example, the rumour that the Pakistan People’s Party had insisted, on co-chairperson Asif Ali Zardari’s advice, that Nawaz Sharif’s return was a necessary condition for tendering resignations, was refuted. While Bilawal echoed his father’s sentiments that resignations were the ultimate weapon and not to be used lightly before exhausting all other options, observers were wont to ascribe this qualified endorsement of the Pakistan Democratic Movement’s declared position as reflecting the Pakistan People’s Party’s stakes in the present dispensation in the shape of the Sindh government, which it obviously was not inclined to throw away for uncertain gains. Nor can the argument that the government should not be given a free run in the Senate elections be dismissed lightly. Bilawal reiterated the Pakistan Democratic Movement’s stance that no dialogue was possible until Imran Khan goes. At the end, he did say that the Pakistan People’s Party Central Executive Committee’s decisions would be discussed in the Pakistan Democratic Movement to forge a consensus on the way forward.

The political landscape is not without concerns for the Pakistan Democratic Movement. Its Lahore rally fell short of expectations, a dampener for the proposed “long march” on Islamabad in January 2021. The National Accountability Bureau is even more active now against the Pakistan Democratic Movement’s leadership. Maulana Fazlur Rehman is now in its crosshairs while Khwaja Asif has been arrested on the by now familiar refrain of ‘assets beyond means’. The federal cabinet has ‘allowed’ the National Assembly Speaker to accept the Pakistan Democratic Movement’s resignations, signalling in no uncertain terms that the Speaker of the National Assembly, who is supposedly the ‘custodian of the house’, is subservient to the will of the executive. The split in the Jamiat-i-Ulema-i-Islam-Fazl smacks of the also familiar skullduggery of the security services. But above all this, the Pakistan Democratic Movement’s anti-security establishment rhetoric is suspect in the light of past experience and the track record of its constituent parties in cooperating with this same establishment when it suited them. If to this is added the point enunciated above of the lack of a programme attractive to the suffering general public, the Pakistan Democratic Movement’s prospects currently appear troubled, if not dim.