Saraiki province again
Prime Minister (PM) Yousaf Raza Gilani has assumed a far more confident demeanour after the PPP’s success in the by-elections and then the Senate polls. That perhaps explains his categorical statement the other day that he and the government were here to stay and not going anywhere. It was a direct rejoinder to all the sceptics and critics that had been repeatedly predicting the demise of the government for one reason or another. Some of this tribe had pinned their hopes on the NRO case, the memo fiasco and the contempt of court being faced by the PM. None of this came to pass however, and in the aftermath of its electoral showing, the PPP and the PM’s mood appears to have changed to open confidence and even defiance against all comers. This newfound confidence and bravado may also explain the PM’s categorical enunciation of the PPP’s support to the creation of a Saraiki province to be carved out of southern Punjab. Addressing a meeting of flood affectees in Muzzafargarh the other day, the PM expressed his wholehearted support for the aim of a Saraiki province. Even if the occasion and location may be part of the explanation why the PM felt the urge to explicate the issue, the fact that in the process he rejected PML-N chief Nawaz Sharif’s suggestion that a province in southern Punjab should be delineated on administrative rather than linguistic or cultural lines, indicates a deeper purpose.
The country is increasingly gripped by election anticipation if not fever. Certainly all the heavyweight leaders are busy at the stumpings. In the context of this development, the PM’s raising of the Saraiki province issue could also be traced to a build up for the coming elections. The PM’s natural sympathies with the area he comes from should come as no surprise. He characterised the Saraiki-speaking people as “sober, kind-hearted and speak(ing) a sweet language”, but went on to assert that this did not mean “they do not know what they want”. The critique of the PML-N’s approach to the aspirations of the people of southern Punjab rests squarely on the sense of neglect and deprivation that is generally prevalent in the area, as well as an assertion of linguistic and cultural rights against ‘Takht Lahore’ (rule by central Punjab from the provincial capital Lahore). Nawaz Sharif’s support to the idea of a new province in southern Punjab, albeit on administrative lines alone, was in response to the voice being raised by the people of the area for recognition of their struggle for political, economic and cultural rights. But administrative convenience alone (i.e. bringing government closer to the doorstep of southern Punjab) does not seem to satisfy the aspirations of the region.
The issue of new provinces found resonance also in the speech Baba Haider Zaman, leader of the Tehrik Hazara Sooba, made in Karachi on the same day, with his rally apparently organised with MQM’s help. MQM has introduced a bill in the National Assembly for the creation of a Hazara province to be carved out of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa. Just as southern Punjab argues that Saraiki is a language separate from Punjabi, the Hazara people assert that their language, Hindko, is separate from Pushto, and that they deserve recognition in the form of a separate province. Here the PPP is caught on the horns of a dilemma. It has not categorically stated that it supports a Hazara province since this would be likely to annoy its coalition partner, the ANP. These glaringly different approaches to the two demands reflects the fact that the question of new provinces is being approached by most political players less on the basis of principle and more for point scoring against their opponents. This has reduced the debate to a political football, without the serious contemplation it deserves.
After One Unit was dissolved in 1970, the restored provinces (and newly created province of Balochistan) were reasonably content. But times and circumstance change, and 42 years later, the unthinkable has entered the mainstream political discourse, even if it is in a politically expedient rather than principled manner. The undivided subcontinent included the greatest mosaic of languages, cultures and national groups found in any part of the world. That is why, in the subcontinent’s history, the periods of a united subcontinent are far fewer and punctuated by long periods of centrifugal tendencies and smaller principalities. The modern history of the subcontinent has followed the same pattern, with the independence movement yielding two states and in 1971, three. Within India, provinces (states as they are called there) were recast and continue to be recast on linguistic and cultural lines. Pakistan’s case being one of a less secure, interrupted march to democracy, the demand for new provinces has taken a long time to germinate and find full expression. This kind of sub-nationalism is by now well known in many parts of the world. What binds all these movements is a sense of loss of identity, discrimination in the political, economic and cultural sphere, and the aspiration to recover all these through control of its own territory, administratively as well as politically. Naturally, such nationalism is usually first articulated by the local elite and intelligentsia, but as soon as it captures the imagination of the masses, takes on the character of an irresistible force. However, the issue cannot be resolved without ascertaining (through referenda for example) the will of the people of the region in question and the province to which they belong. Given the present conjuncture, this is unlikely to see the light of day seriously until after the coming elections.
Monday, March 5, 2012
Sunday, March 4, 2012
Daily Times editorial March 5, 2012
Emboldened Taliban
Former interior minister and chief of his faction of the PPP Aftab Khan Sherpao suffered the third suicide attempt on his life on Saturday while returning from addressing a public rally in Charsadda, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa. The lone suicide bomber, apparently unable to access the rally because of stringent security arrangements, walked out of an open field and into the path of Mr Sherpao’s returning convoy and blew himself up. The blast killed a policeman and wounded eight other people, including MPA Muhammad Ali Khan. The injured are believed to be out of danger. Sherpao’s son Sikandar Sherpao also received minor injuries. The Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) has claimed responsibility, justifying the targeting of Sherpao for his role as interior minister in Musharraf's regime, during which the Taliban were attacked by the security forces. The TTP spokesman vowed to try again and again until they achieved their goal. The incident reflects the inherent difficulties attendant upon safeguarding political personalities and their supporters, especially in public appearances. While the security agencies can be commended for their foolproof security arrangements at the venue of the public rally, which did not allow any unwelcome elements to gain access, the fact that the returning convoy could so easily be targeted is cause for concern. Admittedly, guarding each and every inch of the route the Sherpao convoy was taking is a near impossibility, and cannot be considered the answer to the conundrum of preventing terrorist attacks. Strictly speaking, as we have argued repeatedly in this space, there is little if any chance of stopping a suicide bomber once he has embarked on his mission. The only possibility is if he can be pre-empted from starting his deadly journey. Pre-emption implies good prior intelligence information. That in turn implies not just keeping an eye from the outside on potential or actual terrorists, but the capacity and ability to infiltrate the terrorist groups to have insider information in a timely manner. So far the track record in this regard does not inspire much confidence.
One of the reasons why the intelligence agencies appear helpless to lay hold of potential terrorists before they wreak their bloody project is that the military establishment continues with its ambiguous policy vis-à-vis banned and underground terrorist groups. The banned groups are operating freely, holding public rallies and generally making a nuisance of themselves after reinventing themselves under different social welfare banners. The shadowy underground groups, basically headquartered in FATA, appear to enjoy freedom of movement, selection of relatively vulnerable targets, and the ability to strike where and when they choose, both inside the tribal areas as well as the settled parts of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa. Indications are that the military is reluctant to mount an action in North Waziristan, the headquarters of most Taliban groups, including the Afghan Haqqani network, because of the apprehension that this might lead to an all-out tribal uprising. Piecemeal military offensives in various FATA Agencies such as Orakzai, Khyber and Khurram have failed to yield the desired results because in the absence of an effective encirclement that cuts off the terrorists’ retreat, the militants simply melt away and move to other parts of FATA or Khyber Pakhtunkhwa in the face of irresistible force applied by the military. The militants are simply practising Mao’s dictum: “When the enemy attacks, we retreat; when the enemy tires, we attack.” So far, the strategic and tactical thrust of the military’s campaigns in FATA have failed to achieve any sustainable success. This in itself is a tactical victory of sorts for the militants. The security forces will continue to ‘chase shadows’ until they are able to improve their intelligence gathering and wrinkle out the ambiguities and contradictions in their approach to terrorist groups.
The attack on Sherpao’s convoy has grave implications. Mr Sherpao’s public meeting was of the nature of a build up for the expected general elections some time later this year or early next. When viewed in conjunction with the attack on the ANP rally the other day in the same region, genuine fears have arisen about the threat to the election campaigns of all political parties, in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa in particular and all over the country in general. Public gatherings inherently offer temptations to the terrorists to inflict massive damage and casualties. To prevent the terrorists from holding the democratic process hostage, a process they clearly see as their greatest political challenge, the country’s security agencies must revisit their existing strategy and tactics against terrorism and work out plans for the especially challenging task of safeguarding the political leaders and their supporters from the unwanted attentions of the mayhem mongers.
Former interior minister and chief of his faction of the PPP Aftab Khan Sherpao suffered the third suicide attempt on his life on Saturday while returning from addressing a public rally in Charsadda, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa. The lone suicide bomber, apparently unable to access the rally because of stringent security arrangements, walked out of an open field and into the path of Mr Sherpao’s returning convoy and blew himself up. The blast killed a policeman and wounded eight other people, including MPA Muhammad Ali Khan. The injured are believed to be out of danger. Sherpao’s son Sikandar Sherpao also received minor injuries. The Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) has claimed responsibility, justifying the targeting of Sherpao for his role as interior minister in Musharraf's regime, during which the Taliban were attacked by the security forces. The TTP spokesman vowed to try again and again until they achieved their goal. The incident reflects the inherent difficulties attendant upon safeguarding political personalities and their supporters, especially in public appearances. While the security agencies can be commended for their foolproof security arrangements at the venue of the public rally, which did not allow any unwelcome elements to gain access, the fact that the returning convoy could so easily be targeted is cause for concern. Admittedly, guarding each and every inch of the route the Sherpao convoy was taking is a near impossibility, and cannot be considered the answer to the conundrum of preventing terrorist attacks. Strictly speaking, as we have argued repeatedly in this space, there is little if any chance of stopping a suicide bomber once he has embarked on his mission. The only possibility is if he can be pre-empted from starting his deadly journey. Pre-emption implies good prior intelligence information. That in turn implies not just keeping an eye from the outside on potential or actual terrorists, but the capacity and ability to infiltrate the terrorist groups to have insider information in a timely manner. So far the track record in this regard does not inspire much confidence.
One of the reasons why the intelligence agencies appear helpless to lay hold of potential terrorists before they wreak their bloody project is that the military establishment continues with its ambiguous policy vis-à-vis banned and underground terrorist groups. The banned groups are operating freely, holding public rallies and generally making a nuisance of themselves after reinventing themselves under different social welfare banners. The shadowy underground groups, basically headquartered in FATA, appear to enjoy freedom of movement, selection of relatively vulnerable targets, and the ability to strike where and when they choose, both inside the tribal areas as well as the settled parts of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa. Indications are that the military is reluctant to mount an action in North Waziristan, the headquarters of most Taliban groups, including the Afghan Haqqani network, because of the apprehension that this might lead to an all-out tribal uprising. Piecemeal military offensives in various FATA Agencies such as Orakzai, Khyber and Khurram have failed to yield the desired results because in the absence of an effective encirclement that cuts off the terrorists’ retreat, the militants simply melt away and move to other parts of FATA or Khyber Pakhtunkhwa in the face of irresistible force applied by the military. The militants are simply practising Mao’s dictum: “When the enemy attacks, we retreat; when the enemy tires, we attack.” So far, the strategic and tactical thrust of the military’s campaigns in FATA have failed to achieve any sustainable success. This in itself is a tactical victory of sorts for the militants. The security forces will continue to ‘chase shadows’ until they are able to improve their intelligence gathering and wrinkle out the ambiguities and contradictions in their approach to terrorist groups.
The attack on Sherpao’s convoy has grave implications. Mr Sherpao’s public meeting was of the nature of a build up for the expected general elections some time later this year or early next. When viewed in conjunction with the attack on the ANP rally the other day in the same region, genuine fears have arisen about the threat to the election campaigns of all political parties, in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa in particular and all over the country in general. Public gatherings inherently offer temptations to the terrorists to inflict massive damage and casualties. To prevent the terrorists from holding the democratic process hostage, a process they clearly see as their greatest political challenge, the country’s security agencies must revisit their existing strategy and tactics against terrorism and work out plans for the especially challenging task of safeguarding the political leaders and their supporters from the unwanted attentions of the mayhem mongers.
Saturday, March 3, 2012
Daily Times editorial March 4, 2012
Senate elections
After its good showing in the by-polls, the ruling PPP has triumphed in the Senate elections, winning 19 of the seats on offer. Its strength in the upper house has now climbed to 41 from the previous 27, taking account of retiring senators. This makes the PPP the largest party in the Senate by a fair margin in a house of 104. The next strongest, the PML-N, has boosted its strength to 14 after winning eight seats, ANP to 12 after seven seats accrued to it, MQM and JUI-F are now both at seven, PML-Q at five, BNP-Awami at four, PML-F and the National Party at one each, with the tally being rounded off by 12 independents. Two senators from Islamabad and four from FATA also join the reconstituted house. Of the 54 seats being contested, nine candidates were elected unopposed. The PPP-led coalition's strength is now 70, with some support expected from independents. This is the two-thirds majority that gives the coalition the possibility of having enough strength in the upper house to ensure any constitutional amendments it may move will sail through the upper house. There can be no gainsaying the fact that the results represent a victory for the PPP and its allies, with the Senate opposition now fielding 22 members.
The PPP-led coalition’s victory is made even sweeter if one recalls the air of uncertainty that surrounded the very holding of these elections for months. Rumours and speculations went so far as to assert that the government would be unseated before the Senate elections to prevent the PPP cashing in on a delayed victory on the basis of the 2008 election results. While both victors and runner ups can rightly give themselves a pat on the back for ensuring the conduct of the Senate elections, there are disturbing reports of shenanigans and anomalies. Vote buying has been alleged, and enormous sums of money quoted, but these things are notoriously difficult to pin down, let alone prove. If the allegations have even a grain of truth in them, they represent a blot on the fair face of democracy. We are of course accustomed to enormous sums of money being spent in general elections, a factor that for all purposes has shut the general elections door on all but the vastly endowed with riches. The Senate represents, if there is any, hope that people of merit would be able to find their way to the house and correct the ‘lopsided’ concentration of the rich and famous in parliament. However, on the basis of this Senate election, that cannot be claimed with confidence, the choice along party lines and with seat adjustments between allied parties being the dominant characteristic of these polls.
The unexpected victory of Mohsin Leghari, an independent candidate who had defied his party’s refusal to offer him a ticket, and the consequent defeat of veteran PPP worker Aslam Gill has set off a series of recriminations inside the ranks of the PPP. The disappointed PPP members’ wrath is directed at Babar Awan, who managed his own election but is being blamed for Gill’s defeat. The episode points to dark horses and shifting loyalties within every party, to which the PPP now appears not to be an exception.
While seven general seats from Balochistan have had their results delayed because of objections, that conundrum will be resolved through a vote recount and the results should be available on March 5. It is unlikely that the final result from Balochistan will materially alter the shape of the house. The triumph of the ruling coalition should also be seen as the triumph of democracy, the nascent system finding new roots and strength, albeit in halting fashion and not without setbacks, criticism and introspection. Pakistan’s future lies in consolidating the democratic system rather than dwelling unnecessarily on the undoubted failings of the present ruling coalition. Democracy is about more than the present dispensation. It is about setting the rules of the political game along acceptable parameters and ensuring the all too frequent interruptions of the process in our history are not repeated.
After its good showing in the by-polls, the ruling PPP has triumphed in the Senate elections, winning 19 of the seats on offer. Its strength in the upper house has now climbed to 41 from the previous 27, taking account of retiring senators. This makes the PPP the largest party in the Senate by a fair margin in a house of 104. The next strongest, the PML-N, has boosted its strength to 14 after winning eight seats, ANP to 12 after seven seats accrued to it, MQM and JUI-F are now both at seven, PML-Q at five, BNP-Awami at four, PML-F and the National Party at one each, with the tally being rounded off by 12 independents. Two senators from Islamabad and four from FATA also join the reconstituted house. Of the 54 seats being contested, nine candidates were elected unopposed. The PPP-led coalition's strength is now 70, with some support expected from independents. This is the two-thirds majority that gives the coalition the possibility of having enough strength in the upper house to ensure any constitutional amendments it may move will sail through the upper house. There can be no gainsaying the fact that the results represent a victory for the PPP and its allies, with the Senate opposition now fielding 22 members.
The PPP-led coalition’s victory is made even sweeter if one recalls the air of uncertainty that surrounded the very holding of these elections for months. Rumours and speculations went so far as to assert that the government would be unseated before the Senate elections to prevent the PPP cashing in on a delayed victory on the basis of the 2008 election results. While both victors and runner ups can rightly give themselves a pat on the back for ensuring the conduct of the Senate elections, there are disturbing reports of shenanigans and anomalies. Vote buying has been alleged, and enormous sums of money quoted, but these things are notoriously difficult to pin down, let alone prove. If the allegations have even a grain of truth in them, they represent a blot on the fair face of democracy. We are of course accustomed to enormous sums of money being spent in general elections, a factor that for all purposes has shut the general elections door on all but the vastly endowed with riches. The Senate represents, if there is any, hope that people of merit would be able to find their way to the house and correct the ‘lopsided’ concentration of the rich and famous in parliament. However, on the basis of this Senate election, that cannot be claimed with confidence, the choice along party lines and with seat adjustments between allied parties being the dominant characteristic of these polls.
The unexpected victory of Mohsin Leghari, an independent candidate who had defied his party’s refusal to offer him a ticket, and the consequent defeat of veteran PPP worker Aslam Gill has set off a series of recriminations inside the ranks of the PPP. The disappointed PPP members’ wrath is directed at Babar Awan, who managed his own election but is being blamed for Gill’s defeat. The episode points to dark horses and shifting loyalties within every party, to which the PPP now appears not to be an exception.
While seven general seats from Balochistan have had their results delayed because of objections, that conundrum will be resolved through a vote recount and the results should be available on March 5. It is unlikely that the final result from Balochistan will materially alter the shape of the house. The triumph of the ruling coalition should also be seen as the triumph of democracy, the nascent system finding new roots and strength, albeit in halting fashion and not without setbacks, criticism and introspection. Pakistan’s future lies in consolidating the democratic system rather than dwelling unnecessarily on the undoubted failings of the present ruling coalition. Democracy is about more than the present dispensation. It is about setting the rules of the political game along acceptable parameters and ensuring the all too frequent interruptions of the process in our history are not repeated.
Friday, March 2, 2012
Daily Times editorial March 3, 2012
Pakistan’s interests first
It is hardly a secret that Pakistan is going through a massive energy crunch. Electricity and gas load shedding, the intermittent supply of CNG and the high cost of all forms of energy are the daily misery of the people. If Pakistan then decides to seek energy from any and all sources, it can hardly be blamed. The recent trilateral summit amongst Pakistan, Iran and Afghanistan yielded the assurances to Iran that Pakistan stands committed to the Iran-Pakistan gas pipeline and enhancement of trade, apart from standing by Iran at a time when that country is undergoing sanctions and being threatened with military action by Israel and the US over its nuclear programme. It should come as no surprise therefore that both Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gilani and Foreign Minister Hina Rabbani Khar, in separate interactions with the media, should have reiterated their resolve to build the Iran-Pakistan gas pipeline, import electricity for Gwadar and Mekran from Iran (70 MW is reportedly already being received), and promote trade in local currencies and through barter with Tehran. The latter has in turn offered oil on deferred payment.
The prime minister and foreign minister felt compelled to respond to questions regarding US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s Congressional testimony the other day that Pakistan could suffer sanctions if it goes ahead with the Iran-Pakistan gas pipeline. Although the US State Department has attempted damage control by denying Ms Clinton’s remarks amounted to a threat, in the current fraught state of relations between Washington and Islamabad, Ms Clinton’s remarks took on an ominous tone. Although Foreign Minister Khar reportedly relied on the present process of negotiations between the west and Iran regarding its alleged nuclear weapons programme yielding a solution to the impasse and sanctions against Iran (i.e. a ‘wait and see’ policy rather than the initial impression of firm resolve), this seems a long shot when Israel’s keenness to initiate a strike against Iran is public knowledge. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, known as a hawk on Iran, may be restrained by US President Barack Obama in their interaction in Washington, but nobody in their right mind can pin all their hopes on a peaceful solution to the standoff with Iran. The US currently has concerns regarding any military action against Iran threatening the lives of Americans in Iraq and Afghanistan, the latter country already producing a crop of American personnel’s killings over the Quran burning issue.
Since the end of the Cold War, a pattern of the US-led western alliance ‘taking out’ governments they consider ‘recalcitrant' (i.e. not bending before US/western interests) through internal subversion and external military intervention has emerged. One only has to recall the recent examples of Libya and now Syria to see the picture. At the same time, the US-led western alliance’s ability to control events is not without challenge. Russia and China of late have demonstrated that the west will no longer be given a walkover when it comes to regime change in countries that have a different view than that of the western alliance. The withdrawal of US/NATO forces from the region in which Iraq and Afghanistan are located has produced a realignment of regional countries in their own interests and as a safeguard against the aftermath of instability that the withdrawal is likely to leave in its wake. It is therefore perfectly logical and explicable (Ms Clinton should take note) why Pakistan in its own interests first and foremost should seek friendly relations with its neighbours, including Iran, and try to resolve its energy needs from whatever sources they are available. A life and death issue like this one cannot be bartered away on the plane of expediency of any kind.
It is hardly a secret that Pakistan is going through a massive energy crunch. Electricity and gas load shedding, the intermittent supply of CNG and the high cost of all forms of energy are the daily misery of the people. If Pakistan then decides to seek energy from any and all sources, it can hardly be blamed. The recent trilateral summit amongst Pakistan, Iran and Afghanistan yielded the assurances to Iran that Pakistan stands committed to the Iran-Pakistan gas pipeline and enhancement of trade, apart from standing by Iran at a time when that country is undergoing sanctions and being threatened with military action by Israel and the US over its nuclear programme. It should come as no surprise therefore that both Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gilani and Foreign Minister Hina Rabbani Khar, in separate interactions with the media, should have reiterated their resolve to build the Iran-Pakistan gas pipeline, import electricity for Gwadar and Mekran from Iran (70 MW is reportedly already being received), and promote trade in local currencies and through barter with Tehran. The latter has in turn offered oil on deferred payment.
The prime minister and foreign minister felt compelled to respond to questions regarding US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s Congressional testimony the other day that Pakistan could suffer sanctions if it goes ahead with the Iran-Pakistan gas pipeline. Although the US State Department has attempted damage control by denying Ms Clinton’s remarks amounted to a threat, in the current fraught state of relations between Washington and Islamabad, Ms Clinton’s remarks took on an ominous tone. Although Foreign Minister Khar reportedly relied on the present process of negotiations between the west and Iran regarding its alleged nuclear weapons programme yielding a solution to the impasse and sanctions against Iran (i.e. a ‘wait and see’ policy rather than the initial impression of firm resolve), this seems a long shot when Israel’s keenness to initiate a strike against Iran is public knowledge. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, known as a hawk on Iran, may be restrained by US President Barack Obama in their interaction in Washington, but nobody in their right mind can pin all their hopes on a peaceful solution to the standoff with Iran. The US currently has concerns regarding any military action against Iran threatening the lives of Americans in Iraq and Afghanistan, the latter country already producing a crop of American personnel’s killings over the Quran burning issue.
Since the end of the Cold War, a pattern of the US-led western alliance ‘taking out’ governments they consider ‘recalcitrant' (i.e. not bending before US/western interests) through internal subversion and external military intervention has emerged. One only has to recall the recent examples of Libya and now Syria to see the picture. At the same time, the US-led western alliance’s ability to control events is not without challenge. Russia and China of late have demonstrated that the west will no longer be given a walkover when it comes to regime change in countries that have a different view than that of the western alliance. The withdrawal of US/NATO forces from the region in which Iraq and Afghanistan are located has produced a realignment of regional countries in their own interests and as a safeguard against the aftermath of instability that the withdrawal is likely to leave in its wake. It is therefore perfectly logical and explicable (Ms Clinton should take note) why Pakistan in its own interests first and foremost should seek friendly relations with its neighbours, including Iran, and try to resolve its energy needs from whatever sources they are available. A life and death issue like this one cannot be bartered away on the plane of expediency of any kind.
Thursday, March 1, 2012
Daily Times editorial March 2, 2012
Inflationary bomb
The government hit the people with a 1-2-3 punch on Wednesday by simultaneously raising oil, electricity, CNG prices, with the supposed substitute for increasingly short gas supplies, i.e. LPG, suffering its own surge because of the linkage to international prices tagged to the Aramco standard. Petrol was raised by Rs 2.75 per litre to Rs 97.66 per litre, HOBC by Rs 8.67 per litre to Rs 126.87 per litre, light diesel by Rs 3.08 per litre to Rs 93.29 per litre, kerosene by Rs 4.38 per litre to Rs 96.40 per litre, while mercifully the price of high speed diesel remained the same at Rs 103.46 per litre. CNG prices meanwhile have gone up by Rs 2.83 per kg in Zone-I (southern) and Rs 1.45 per kg in Zone-II (northern). The hoped for substitute for scarce gas, LPG, is going to be de-linked from Saudi Aramco Contract Prices in the hope of benefiting consumers and reversing the cartelisation in the sector. The price of high speed diesel was not increased because of the efforts of the National Assembly’s (NA’s) Special Committee on Petroleum Prices, which argued for avoiding the highest inflationary impact of increasing high speed diesel prices. The so-called ‘subsidy’ this entails comes to Rs 1.7 billion for the month of March. In actual fact, this is a misnomer, since it is actually the foregoing of revenue from the POL ‘cash cow’. As if this were not enough, electricity prices will go up to recover the increased price of fuel in August 2011, which had been stayed by a Lahore High Court order, since vacated. In real terms, this would translate into a 39 percent increase in consumers’ electricity bills for March.
The current policy of the government vis-à-vis energy pricing suffers from a number of defects, flaws and lacunae. First and foremost, the oil pricing mechanism is far from transparent. The NA committee’s intervention is an attempt to hold officials responsible for managing oil prices accountable. It has succeeded, albeit partially, in restraining the penchant of these officials to pass on the burden of rising oil prices in the international market wholesale onto the consumers and public. The argument is that international prices are not in our control and their increases cannot be absorbed by the government (i.e. the precarious state of finances does not allow any such ‘subsidy’). Admittedly, international prices are rising and beyond our control. Bur the other side of the coin is that successive governments (including this one) have been treating POL products as ‘cash cows’ for revenue generation and made no effort to find new sources of revenue by taxing all untaxed sectors, thus allowing some latitude to, if not completely eliminate the high tax and levies burden on POL prices, at least minimise the need for feeding off a sector whose price fluctuations have a profound and across the board effect on inflation. For one thing, every time a price hike is imminent (every fortnight), the oil companies and pumps accrue windfall profits by withholding their stocks from the market and consumers. Second, the impact of, and sympathetic price rises because of POL products’ increased prices have the very real potential to cripple an already ailing economy and crush an already groaning public. Third, in these times of economic downturn, there is little evidence that the government takes its responsibility seriously for curbing its expenditures to create some fiscal space for policies that do not place the entire burden of recessionary times on the backs of the common man. Profligacy in government spending (and bank borrowing to cover the fiscal deficit, which has the additional effect of crowding out private sector borrowing and therefore investment), unimaginative sticking to policies that lack innovative thinking and rely on received wisdom alone, and the easy expedient of passing on all the burden of inflation to industry, commerce, agriculture and the public can hardly be described as a policy framework that can deliver. It may even, in an anticipated election year, end up costing the incumbents heavily.
The government hit the people with a 1-2-3 punch on Wednesday by simultaneously raising oil, electricity, CNG prices, with the supposed substitute for increasingly short gas supplies, i.e. LPG, suffering its own surge because of the linkage to international prices tagged to the Aramco standard. Petrol was raised by Rs 2.75 per litre to Rs 97.66 per litre, HOBC by Rs 8.67 per litre to Rs 126.87 per litre, light diesel by Rs 3.08 per litre to Rs 93.29 per litre, kerosene by Rs 4.38 per litre to Rs 96.40 per litre, while mercifully the price of high speed diesel remained the same at Rs 103.46 per litre. CNG prices meanwhile have gone up by Rs 2.83 per kg in Zone-I (southern) and Rs 1.45 per kg in Zone-II (northern). The hoped for substitute for scarce gas, LPG, is going to be de-linked from Saudi Aramco Contract Prices in the hope of benefiting consumers and reversing the cartelisation in the sector. The price of high speed diesel was not increased because of the efforts of the National Assembly’s (NA’s) Special Committee on Petroleum Prices, which argued for avoiding the highest inflationary impact of increasing high speed diesel prices. The so-called ‘subsidy’ this entails comes to Rs 1.7 billion for the month of March. In actual fact, this is a misnomer, since it is actually the foregoing of revenue from the POL ‘cash cow’. As if this were not enough, electricity prices will go up to recover the increased price of fuel in August 2011, which had been stayed by a Lahore High Court order, since vacated. In real terms, this would translate into a 39 percent increase in consumers’ electricity bills for March.
The current policy of the government vis-à-vis energy pricing suffers from a number of defects, flaws and lacunae. First and foremost, the oil pricing mechanism is far from transparent. The NA committee’s intervention is an attempt to hold officials responsible for managing oil prices accountable. It has succeeded, albeit partially, in restraining the penchant of these officials to pass on the burden of rising oil prices in the international market wholesale onto the consumers and public. The argument is that international prices are not in our control and their increases cannot be absorbed by the government (i.e. the precarious state of finances does not allow any such ‘subsidy’). Admittedly, international prices are rising and beyond our control. Bur the other side of the coin is that successive governments (including this one) have been treating POL products as ‘cash cows’ for revenue generation and made no effort to find new sources of revenue by taxing all untaxed sectors, thus allowing some latitude to, if not completely eliminate the high tax and levies burden on POL prices, at least minimise the need for feeding off a sector whose price fluctuations have a profound and across the board effect on inflation. For one thing, every time a price hike is imminent (every fortnight), the oil companies and pumps accrue windfall profits by withholding their stocks from the market and consumers. Second, the impact of, and sympathetic price rises because of POL products’ increased prices have the very real potential to cripple an already ailing economy and crush an already groaning public. Third, in these times of economic downturn, there is little evidence that the government takes its responsibility seriously for curbing its expenditures to create some fiscal space for policies that do not place the entire burden of recessionary times on the backs of the common man. Profligacy in government spending (and bank borrowing to cover the fiscal deficit, which has the additional effect of crowding out private sector borrowing and therefore investment), unimaginative sticking to policies that lack innovative thinking and rely on received wisdom alone, and the easy expedient of passing on all the burden of inflation to industry, commerce, agriculture and the public can hardly be described as a policy framework that can deliver. It may even, in an anticipated election year, end up costing the incumbents heavily.
Saturday, February 25, 2012
Daily Times editorial Feb 26, 2012
Government’s response on Balochistan
President Asif Ali Zardari has said Balochistan is the topmost priority for the government and he is willing to visit the province to talk to the Baloch leaders. The president went on to say that he would make sure that the people of Balochistan became part of Pakistan’s society. He asserted that he was aware of the injustices to the Baloch people and would not abandon his brothers in such difficult times. With due respect, the manner in which the government has made the Balochistan issue its ‘topmost priority’ leaves much to be desired. The thrust of the government’s approach, starting from the president’s apology to the Baloch people for past excesses and leading up to the Aghaaz-e-Haqooq-e-Balochistan Package, has been predicated on a deliberate and misplaced concreteness that relies on offering development to the troubled province’s youth without addressing the real ground situation. The elephant in the room that the government chooses to ignore is the fact that the present course in Balochistan is dictated by the military establishment. The policy of kidnapping, torturing and then dumping the dead bodies of nationalists all over the province is surely not the idea of the government, federal or provincial. However, neither government has been able in the last four years to restrain the military and intelligence agencies from their dastardly and arguably eventually disastrous course. Given this reality, what sort of reciprocity does the president expect on a visit to the province from the alienated Baloch leaders? And it should not be forgotten either that these are the moderate leaders who do not necessarily subscribe to the idea of separation and independence for Balochistan. That so far is the declared position only of the Baloch leaders in exile or in the mountains. Since there is little if any chance of a dialogue with those extremely angry and alienated elements, any presidential visit without dealing seriously with the complaints, immediate and long term, of the Baloch would once again prove an exercise in futility, a dialogue of the deaf, with neither side conceding the other’s point of view.
First and foremost, the government has to abandon the flawed notion that ‘development’ can trump politics in the province. No amount of announcement of development projects, schools and other institutions can mollify the estranged province. The government must talk to the military establishment to withdraw the hated FC from the province, stop the kill and dump policy, recover the missing persons under a lawful approach to dealing with them, and last but not least, find ways and means to talk not only to the ‘available’ Baloch leaders (albeit they too are reluctant to engage unless the conditions enumerated above are met) but also those in exile or in the mountains. All this requires a major rethink on the approach to the province’s problems. These immediate steps could transform at least the atmospherics and open up space for a genuine dialogue. Off the cuff announcements such as those by Interior Minister Rehman Malik that cases against the insurgent leaders will be withdrawn, only to be cast into the shadows of doubt barely a day later, are not helpful. They only serve to widen the credibility gap. The Foreign Office has chimed in with the usual mantra of a ‘foreign hand’ churning up trouble in the province. These claims are neither new nor, in the absence of any evidence, credible. They too only serve to stoke the fires of anger and alienation and make the apprehensions triggered by the hearing and resolution in the US Congress self-fulfilling prophecies. Restraint, honesty of purpose, a turn from repression to genuine dialogue is the only way forward. The present course portends disaster.
President Asif Ali Zardari has said Balochistan is the topmost priority for the government and he is willing to visit the province to talk to the Baloch leaders. The president went on to say that he would make sure that the people of Balochistan became part of Pakistan’s society. He asserted that he was aware of the injustices to the Baloch people and would not abandon his brothers in such difficult times. With due respect, the manner in which the government has made the Balochistan issue its ‘topmost priority’ leaves much to be desired. The thrust of the government’s approach, starting from the president’s apology to the Baloch people for past excesses and leading up to the Aghaaz-e-Haqooq-e-Balochistan Package, has been predicated on a deliberate and misplaced concreteness that relies on offering development to the troubled province’s youth without addressing the real ground situation. The elephant in the room that the government chooses to ignore is the fact that the present course in Balochistan is dictated by the military establishment. The policy of kidnapping, torturing and then dumping the dead bodies of nationalists all over the province is surely not the idea of the government, federal or provincial. However, neither government has been able in the last four years to restrain the military and intelligence agencies from their dastardly and arguably eventually disastrous course. Given this reality, what sort of reciprocity does the president expect on a visit to the province from the alienated Baloch leaders? And it should not be forgotten either that these are the moderate leaders who do not necessarily subscribe to the idea of separation and independence for Balochistan. That so far is the declared position only of the Baloch leaders in exile or in the mountains. Since there is little if any chance of a dialogue with those extremely angry and alienated elements, any presidential visit without dealing seriously with the complaints, immediate and long term, of the Baloch would once again prove an exercise in futility, a dialogue of the deaf, with neither side conceding the other’s point of view.
First and foremost, the government has to abandon the flawed notion that ‘development’ can trump politics in the province. No amount of announcement of development projects, schools and other institutions can mollify the estranged province. The government must talk to the military establishment to withdraw the hated FC from the province, stop the kill and dump policy, recover the missing persons under a lawful approach to dealing with them, and last but not least, find ways and means to talk not only to the ‘available’ Baloch leaders (albeit they too are reluctant to engage unless the conditions enumerated above are met) but also those in exile or in the mountains. All this requires a major rethink on the approach to the province’s problems. These immediate steps could transform at least the atmospherics and open up space for a genuine dialogue. Off the cuff announcements such as those by Interior Minister Rehman Malik that cases against the insurgent leaders will be withdrawn, only to be cast into the shadows of doubt barely a day later, are not helpful. They only serve to widen the credibility gap. The Foreign Office has chimed in with the usual mantra of a ‘foreign hand’ churning up trouble in the province. These claims are neither new nor, in the absence of any evidence, credible. They too only serve to stoke the fires of anger and alienation and make the apprehensions triggered by the hearing and resolution in the US Congress self-fulfilling prophecies. Restraint, honesty of purpose, a turn from repression to genuine dialogue is the only way forward. The present course portends disaster.
Friday, February 24, 2012
Daily Times editorial Feb 25, 2012
Quran burning crisis
As though things were not difficult enough for western forces in Afghanistan, the incident of the Quran being burnt at Bagram air base has really put the cat among the pigeons. Thousands of Afghans have protested against the desecration of the Holy Book, at times turning violent and attacking western bases and installations. Two American soldiers have been killed by an Afghan soldier, and at least 12 protestors have lost their lives. The protests show no sign of abating as these lines are being written, and it is difficult to predict how this will play out eventually. The incident has come as a Godsend for the Taliban, who have exhorted Afghans to kill westerners, while their spokesman has at the same time said that the Qatar process of negotiations between the Taliban and the US would not be affected by the unfortunate incident. President Barack Obama has promptly sent a letter of apology to President Hamid Karzai, regretting the incident and calling it accidental. He has promised action against those responsible. The despatch with which the US president has responded in this case is glaringly different from the apology demanded by Pakistan for the killing of 24 of its soldiers in Salala, an apology that is said still to be ‘in the pipeline’. That glaring difference is an indicator of the seriousness of the reaction within Afghanistan to the desecration. Whether Obama’s apology will be sufficient to cool Afghan anger, however, remains difficult to ascertain, such is the angst unleashed by the incident amongst the religiously sensitive Afghans.
It is amazing that in spite of reported instructions issued to American soldiers regarding cultural and religious sensitivities, the US soldiers in the field in Afghanistan are either “ignorant” (as Obama put it in his apology letter) or just plain downright stupid. Clearly, nothing has been learnt by the US military from similar reported incidents in Guantanamo Bay prison and Iraq. In this respect, the US soldiers are their own worst enemies. The difficulties confronting US/NATO forces in the run up to the 2014 troops withdrawal have suddenly turned even more serious. At the best of times, candid off the record views of western observers admitted that in Afghanistan, the west is reduced to hoping against hope that all will go well up to and including the 2014 withdrawal. And all this kerfuffle is made worse by the fact that Pakistan-US relations continue to remain in a state of paralysis, creating more pressures on the western forces’ supply and logistics (Pakistan has still not reopened the supply routes to Afghanistan) and casting doubts on the ability of the US/NATO forces to negotiate a dignified withdrawal from Afghanistan while not leaving a total mess behind. US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Pakistani Foreign Minister Hina Rabbani Khar’s interaction on the sidelines of an international conference on Somalia in London led to all the usual noises from both sides about getting their relations back on track, but the Pakistani parliamentary review of relations and terms of engagement seems subject to delay while the Senate elections loom. A joint session of parliament is supposed to be convened to visit the recommendations of the parliamentary committee on national security regarding the matter, and only after parliament decides the way forward will the diplomats on both sides be able to get down to the business of hammering out the details. US Special Representative for Pakistan and Afghanistan Marc Grossman is still cooling his heels waiting for an invitation to visit Pakistan for discussions, as is General Dempsey, Central Command chief. Having shot itself in the foot in Afghanistan because of the Quran desecration incident, the US is not exactly on top of its game with Pakistan or in the region as a whole. If there is a lesson to be learnt from all this, it is quite simply that foreign wars and occupations eventually exact a high toll. Old-style imperialist intervention to police the world in the interests of the great powers is an idea that is, to put it politely, passé.
As though things were not difficult enough for western forces in Afghanistan, the incident of the Quran being burnt at Bagram air base has really put the cat among the pigeons. Thousands of Afghans have protested against the desecration of the Holy Book, at times turning violent and attacking western bases and installations. Two American soldiers have been killed by an Afghan soldier, and at least 12 protestors have lost their lives. The protests show no sign of abating as these lines are being written, and it is difficult to predict how this will play out eventually. The incident has come as a Godsend for the Taliban, who have exhorted Afghans to kill westerners, while their spokesman has at the same time said that the Qatar process of negotiations between the Taliban and the US would not be affected by the unfortunate incident. President Barack Obama has promptly sent a letter of apology to President Hamid Karzai, regretting the incident and calling it accidental. He has promised action against those responsible. The despatch with which the US president has responded in this case is glaringly different from the apology demanded by Pakistan for the killing of 24 of its soldiers in Salala, an apology that is said still to be ‘in the pipeline’. That glaring difference is an indicator of the seriousness of the reaction within Afghanistan to the desecration. Whether Obama’s apology will be sufficient to cool Afghan anger, however, remains difficult to ascertain, such is the angst unleashed by the incident amongst the religiously sensitive Afghans.
It is amazing that in spite of reported instructions issued to American soldiers regarding cultural and religious sensitivities, the US soldiers in the field in Afghanistan are either “ignorant” (as Obama put it in his apology letter) or just plain downright stupid. Clearly, nothing has been learnt by the US military from similar reported incidents in Guantanamo Bay prison and Iraq. In this respect, the US soldiers are their own worst enemies. The difficulties confronting US/NATO forces in the run up to the 2014 troops withdrawal have suddenly turned even more serious. At the best of times, candid off the record views of western observers admitted that in Afghanistan, the west is reduced to hoping against hope that all will go well up to and including the 2014 withdrawal. And all this kerfuffle is made worse by the fact that Pakistan-US relations continue to remain in a state of paralysis, creating more pressures on the western forces’ supply and logistics (Pakistan has still not reopened the supply routes to Afghanistan) and casting doubts on the ability of the US/NATO forces to negotiate a dignified withdrawal from Afghanistan while not leaving a total mess behind. US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Pakistani Foreign Minister Hina Rabbani Khar’s interaction on the sidelines of an international conference on Somalia in London led to all the usual noises from both sides about getting their relations back on track, but the Pakistani parliamentary review of relations and terms of engagement seems subject to delay while the Senate elections loom. A joint session of parliament is supposed to be convened to visit the recommendations of the parliamentary committee on national security regarding the matter, and only after parliament decides the way forward will the diplomats on both sides be able to get down to the business of hammering out the details. US Special Representative for Pakistan and Afghanistan Marc Grossman is still cooling his heels waiting for an invitation to visit Pakistan for discussions, as is General Dempsey, Central Command chief. Having shot itself in the foot in Afghanistan because of the Quran desecration incident, the US is not exactly on top of its game with Pakistan or in the region as a whole. If there is a lesson to be learnt from all this, it is quite simply that foreign wars and occupations eventually exact a high toll. Old-style imperialist intervention to police the world in the interests of the great powers is an idea that is, to put it politely, passé.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)