Business Recorder editorial Jan 31, 2017

Better late than never Jamaat-ud-Dawa (JuD) chief Hafiz Saeed and four other leaders of the organisation have been placed under house arrest for three months. The JuD and its charity front, the Falah-i-Insaaniat Foundation (FIF), have been included in the second schedule and put on the watch list for six months under Section (1) 11EEE of the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997. The names of several JuD leaders have also been placed on the Exit Control List. Interior Minister Chaudhry Nisar has revealed that the government is deciding the JuD’s fate, which had been on the watch list for several years. JuD had been listed by the UN’s sanctions committee, popularly known as the al Qaeda and Taliban sanctions committee, under UN Security Council Resolution 1267 since December 2008 and had been declared a terrorist organisation by the world body. The US State Department too had termed the JuD a “foreign terrorist organisation” in June 2014 and imposed head money of $ 10 million on Hafiz Saeed. Under the terms of UN Security Council Resolution 1267, a Financial Action Task Force (FATF) was set up by the G-7 Group in 1989 to oversee the stoppage of money laundering globally, especially where it may pertain to terrorism funding. By taking action now against the JuD and its leader, Pakistan it appears has managed to prevent its relegation from the FATF’s white list to its grey, or even worse, negative list, a status equivalent to a state being perceived as complicit in terrorism funding. Not only have the five leaders of JuD been put under house arrest, all assets of the JuD and FIF have been frozen, their passports and arms licences cancelled, and a travel ban imposed. All concerned departments, including the State Bank of Pakistan, commercial banks, law enforcement agencies, Federal Bureau of Revenue, FIA and the provincial governments have been instructed to implement the order and report compliance. There remains the possibility that the JuD may be banned, but how much good that will do is questionable, given that the JuD emerged as the new avatar of the Lashkar-e-Tayyaba when the going got rough for the latter. A ban may simply resurrect the JuD under some other banner, as in the past. The action against the JuD is much belated, but welcome. Better late than never, and best before Pakistan is subjected to sanctions for not proceeding against an organisation on international terrorist lists. However, some questions remain unanswered. Given that Hafiz Saeed is widely held responsible for the Mumbai attacks of 2008 in which 166 people were killed, why has it taken the authorities so long to move against him and his outfit? Is it the case that the establishment was providing him protection and succour, not to mention allowing the scandal of Mr Saeed having the free run of the country? This stance offended India and the US. Why now, after all these years of prevarication? The easiest and probably most accurate answer is US pressure, especially with the new ‘no nonsense’ US President Donald Trump in office. The other aspect of the affair is the way forward. If the past is any guide, Hafiz Saeed has been in preventive detention before, once in 2002 for several months under the Musharraf regime after the attack on the Indian parliament, and again after the Mumbai attacks in 2008. In both cases he was eventually released by the courts as the authorities had failed to present a viable case against him. In any case the preventive detention laws do not allow extensions of detention beyond 12 months. So the question arises whether, like in the past, Hafiz Saeed’s woes will end once the immediate pressure abates. If not, then what? Pakistan has suffered grievously over the years because of its mistaken policy of relying on armed proxies to project its interests in our neighbourhood. We have become isolated and perhaps even the butt of global incredulity over our defence of such proxies. The gambit may have been useful in the past, especially in the context of the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan, but it is the height of shortsightedness to persist with a policy whose shelf life has long passed with changed circumstances. Pakistan must shed its proxy obsession if we are to co-exist with today’s world and find our rightful place in the sun.

Business Recorder Column Jan 30, 2017

A new resistance movement Rashed Rahman One week into his presidency, Donald Trump has already shaken up the US and the world, as he had threatened to do in his election campaign rhetoric. His executive order banning the entry of people from seven Muslim majority countries adversely affected many individuals and families travelling to the US. Some were stopped from getting on flights at airports around the world and those arriving at US airports with valid travel documents were detained. It is however, a measure of the strength of rights consciousness, constitutional freedoms and an adherence to traditional American values by a considerable body of citizens that has sparked off and reinforced the continuation of a new resistance movement against the extreme, prejudiced, hate-filled worldview of Donald Trump and the policies that flow from it. First came the women’s march one day after Trump’s taking office. The depth and spread of this march over the continental US and many countries around the world was a portent of things to come. Now the American Civil Liberties Union and other groups and individuals have fired the opening shots of the campaign of resistance to Trump’s excesses. US judges in a number of states have blocked the deportation of persons from the seven countries to whom the ban applies who were detained at airports despite having validly travelled to the US. Not all of the 109 people denied entry on January 28 or the 173 not allowed to board US-bound flights could avail the relief on offer in the judges’ restraining orders. But the orders and other manifestations of protest could prove the opening salvos in what is shaping up as a protracted ‘war’ against what the Trump administration represents and stands for. Elected officials such as Virginia’s governor and attorney general made it a point to welcome Muslim visitors at US airports with flowers and balloons. They were accompanied by welcoming crowds of citizens reiterating the historical fact that the US is a land of immigrants (only the indigenous peoples of North America can claim to be the original inhabitants, and their sad fate at the hands of rapacious settler colonialism is by now well documented) that cannot go back on this traditional ethos without denying its right to exist. Trump’s order bans visitors from Iran (which has threatened retaliation against American citizens), Iraq (the US ‘ally’ has expressed muted misgivings), Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen. These, according to the Trump doctrine, are countries experiencing internal conflict and from which terrorist threats emanate. Even if, for the sake of argument, this assertion is accepted, the blanket ban on citizens of these overwhelmingly Muslim majority countries on the basis of their country of origin rather than any crime or ‘sin’ they may have committed, plays directly into the hands of the real (as opposed to imagined) terrorists such as al Qaeda and Islamic State (IS). They can point to this irrational ban as proof that Washington is against Muslims qua Muslims. The measure therefore is likely to achieve exactly the opposite effect of what may have been intended, i.e. stoke the fires of jihadi hatred against the US and perhaps provoke the very attacks on US soil that the executive order is meant to guard against. The mosque shooting in Quebec, Canada, that killed six people in a congregation of 40 on January 30 may or may not have any connection with the events in the US, but it could portend a violent reaction on US soil by IS and others of its ilk. Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, by the way, has opened Canada’s doors to refugees and immigrants in a direct slap on the face of Trump’s policy. Protests have broken out and are continuing in many cities across the US against the ban. Reportedly, 11 countries were initially listed for the ban, including Pakistan and Afghanistan, but this was later pared to seven on the advice of US security officials. Pakistan reportedly may not be entirely off the hook yet. It is precisely this kind of lack of nuance and even knowledge on the part of Trump that is likely to cause headaches for the US and the rest of the world over the next four years. While his first week in office bodes ill for the US and its citizens, particularly minorities and immigrants, the world too has cause for concern. US membership of and contribution to multilateral platforms ranging from the UN to NATO, threats and attempted intimidation of Mexico, Iran and China, sending ‘America First!’ signals to allies such as Europe, South Korea and Japan, all this signifies a destabilisation of the world order in place since the Second World War which, despite its warts and flaws, has generally speaking determined the ground rules of international relations all these years. The US’s role in this order has been one of a powerful leader, first of the west during the Cold War, later leader of the world in a fluid and complex post-Cold War order. The relative decline of the US’s pre-eminent role in world affairs that is underway because of economic and other factors, even as it remains a military colossus (but increasingly with feet of clay), will accelerate under Trump’s isolationist stances. While the tectonic shift underway in the global power balance to Asia will be strengthened, the risk of conflict or war looms over Trump’s negativity regarding the Iranian nuclear agreement and China’s economic success and claims in the East and south China Seas. As it is, nuclear restraint experts are appalled by Trump’s ideas on South Korea and Japan acquiring nuclear weapons for their defence. It is an idea that flies in the face of decades of constructing the architecture (albeit not entirely satisfactory) of a global nuclear restraint regime. Trump has ordered his military to come up within 30 days with a strategy to defeat IS. This ‘gung-ho’ approach is likely to land the US, and the world, in an even worse mess than the one bequeathed by Trump’s predecessor/s. World leaders are increasingly adding their vocal criticism of Trump’s latest foolishness to their so far more muted concerns about alliances, multilateralism and a stable world order. The Chinese curse of living in ‘interesting times’ is truly upon us with the advent of Don Quixote Trump. rashed.rahman1@gmail.com rashed-rahman.blogspot.com

Business Recorder Editorial Jan 28, 2017

A terrible portent A meeting of parliamentary leaders with Speaker National Assembly (NA) Ayaz Sadiq to settle a code of conduct for parliamentarians in the light of the brawl that disrupted the proceedings of the house on January 26 ended without a decision. The next day, the Speaker announced that no business would be conducted in the house till the way forward had been decided by the parliamentary leaders. He therefore adjourned the house till January 30. A follow up meeting of parliamentary leaders is expected to take place before that session. During the meeting with parliamentary leaders, the Speaker reportedly offered to resign, but according to reports, all parties expressed confidence in him. This is positive and gratifying, particularly since the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaaf (PTI) has been complaining that the Speaker does not conduct the business of the house in a neutral manner. Mercifully, all the parties agreed that the incident was unfortunate and not good for democracy or the sanctity of parliament. It was at least agreed that hurling allegations and shouting slogans must end. The Speaker was of the view that excesses had been committed from both sides. He also spoke about the presence of a ‘stranger in the house’, PTI MNA Shahryar Afridi, whose membership remained suspended by the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) for not filing his returns of assets by the due date. Apparently the house stewards attempted to ask Afridi to leave but he adamantly refused on the ground that he had submitted the necessary return. However, no notification to the effect of removing his suspension had been issued by the ECP. But nothing could budge Afridi. The Speaker was inexplicably not informed by the NA staff of the presence of Afridi in the house, otherwise, the Speaker says, he would not have started the proceedings until the ‘stranger’ had been removed. This issue has assumed greater importance in the light of Afridi’s prominent role in the brawl. If the parliamentary leaders’ meeting with the Speaker failed to achieve any result, this is not surprising since, despite the cooing noises on all sides after the event, the blame game continues, with both sides pointing fingers at the other. The PTI has gone one step further by moving a privilege motion against some of the PML-N’s MNAs and Minister for Petroleum and Natural Resources Khaqan Abbasi, whose attempt to approach the PTI and other opposition members shouting slogans under the ‘conductor’s baton’ of Shah Mahmood Qureshi set off the row. The aftermath of the brawl shows that whereas blame can be apportioned amongst the Speaker, PTI and PML-N, no party shows any signs of contrition or concern about avoiding a repetition of such unsavoury incidents. The insistence of the PTI that no action be taken against any of its members, particularly Shahryar Afridi, indicates the mindset of the PTI. The party seems to have let frustration over its failure to shake the government in its anti-corruption drive (including the Panamagate issue) get the better of it. But the ruling PML-N should not have retaliated in kind, allowing the obvious provocation mounted by the PTI to get under its thin skin. The treasury benches have a greater responsibility for maintaining the dignity and decorum of the house, although it must be conceded they too have often been found wanting in this regard. Neither the treasury nor the opposition benches seem to remember what happened as a consequence of the fighting on the floor of the house in the 1990s. The conduct of the parliamentarians then, amongst other factors, so denuded parliament and democracy of legitimacy that the 1999 military coup was welcomed by large parts of civil society. Going further back, during the 1950s, the parliamentarians turned so violent that the Speaker of the NA was killed in the house in Dhaka. Arguably, incidents such as those paved the way for the 1958 military coup that set Pakistan on a regressive path ever since. Discontents with democracy already exist on the political, economic and social planes. If to those the parliamentarians themselves add deligitimising behaviour, the consequences are not beyond imagination.

Business Recorder editorial Jan 25, 2017

A regressive move The government has reportedly decided to curtail the powers of the Federal Ombudsman as a reaction to the institution’s pointing out irregularities and corruption in the federal and provincial ministries and departments. To implement the decision, the government has drafted a Bill to amend the Establishment of the Office of Wafaqi Mohtasib Order 1983 and the Federal Ombudsman Institutional Reforms Act 2013. The Bill, titled Federal Ombudsmen Institutions (Amendment) Act 2017, is soon to be tabled in the National Assembly. The Bill seeks to restrict the Federal Ombudsman from ‘interfering’ in the affairs of the provincial governments and regional offices. That means the Federal Ombudsman would not be able to appoint provincial ombudsmen or set up regional offices. Further, the Federal Tax Ombudsman would no longer be able to serve as acting Federal Ombudsman when the latter is absent. Both objectives would be met by deleting the relevant clauses in the 1983 and 2013 Acts. What has prompted the government to embark on a move that threatens to undo the good work done by the Federal Ombudsman over the years since the office was created? It seems the Federal Ombudsman has irked the bureaucracy by taking measures to provide for a virtual alternative judicial system that has addressed bottlenecks and irregularities in federal ministries such as interior and foreign affairs, some provincial departments, and the police. The present Federal Ombudsman, Salman Faruqi, has also authored two reports on police and jail reforms that the Supreme Court ordered the provincial governments to implement in their respective provinces. According to the Federal Ombudsman, his office addressed a record 94,000 complaints in 2016, against an average of 16,000 in previous years. To address cases of maladministration and injustice in all ministries and government offices, ‘grievance officers’ not below the rank of BS-19 have been designated to register and hear complaints against these departments on behalf of the Federal Ombudsman. Since October 1, 2016, the grievance officers have been empowered under the Federal Ombudsman Act to hear and decide cases. Information stands and boards have been installed at the receptions of all ministries and departments for public awareness. A list of all focal persons/grievance officers of ministries and departments is available on the Federal Ombudsman’s website. This month, the Federal Ombudsman’s office sought the President’s help in extending its network to the newly installed district and union councils, but the proposal could not materialise, reportedly because a PML-N President thought such a move would end up with the government being blamed for any irregularities thus exposed. Political loyalty and expediency has trumped an institutionalisation of the redressal mechanism provided by the Federal Ombudsman at the local bodies level, not the least because this thinking is in conformity with how the government wants to clip the Federal Ombudsman’s wings. The curtailing of the Federal Ombudsman’s powers has been triggered as the revenge of the bureaucracy exposed by the office against an institution that provides free and quick redressal of grievances to citizens against the bureaucracy’s maladministration and injustices. In this instance it seems the bureaucracy has persuaded Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif of the need to save them from the Federal Ombudsman’s ‘interference’. Not that the prime minister needed much persuasion on this score, considering the recent government move to bring sundry independent regulators under the umbrella of their respective ministries. The institution of Federal Ombudsman has proved to be a source of relief/redress for maladministration and injustice when the judicial system is virtually broken, expensive, bogged down in cumbersome procedures and interminable delays. This has proved an unmitigated boon for all aggrieved citizens, but especially the lower middle class and the poor. What is needed is not a curtailment of the Federal Ombudsman’s powers and outreach to the provincial and local bodies level but a consolidation and expansion of the office’s role. It is ironic and inexplicable that a government that implicitly recognises the problems of a broken judicial system by debating an informal dispute resolution system should be so insecure and mindful of the ‘Laat sahib’s’ interests as to sacrifice one of the few channels of redress and justice enjoyed by ordinary citizens.

Business Recorder editorial Jan 24, 2017

Minister’s indiscretion Punjab Law Minister Rana Sanaullah has a penchant for landing himself and his government in controversy. True to his track record, he has set off another furore because of comments on the judiciary, establishment, and Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaaf (PTI) chief Imran Khan. On all these scores, the Opposition in the Punjab Assembly decided to take the minister to task during the session of the house on January 23. But before the Leader of the Opposition, PTI’s Mahmoodur Rasheed, could utter even a word on the issue, he and the entire Opposition had to butt their heads against the wall of intransigence thrown up by Speaker Rana Iqbal, who refused to allow Mahmoodur Rasheed to speak. The following uproar by the Opposition could easily have been avoided. Surely the heavens would not have fallen if the honourable Speaker had seen fit to act more like the custodian of the house and less like a partisan of the ruling PML-N from whence he ascended to the august Speaker’s chair. Ironically, amidst the uproar, it took an intervention by none other than the target of the Opposition’s wrath, Rana Sanaullah, to resolve the unnecessary row. The law minister prevailed upon the spectacle of an immovable rock presented by the Speaker by arguing that if the Leader of the Opposition was allowed to speak, this would afford him an opportunity to rebut the criticism directed at him. This ‘lesson’ in the way the house is supposed to function finally so impressed the Speaker that he melted and gave Mahmoodur Rasheed the floor. Rasheed found Sanaullah’s take on the Panama case before the Supreme Court, the lapsed military courts and the qualities of head and heart possessed by Imran Khan “highly objectionable”. Sanaullah in a TV appearance the other day had compared the role of ‘certain forces’ in trying to oust Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif through the courts with the manner in which similar forces had connived to bring about Zulfikar Ali Bhutto’s “judicial murder”. He had asserted that these forces were trying to pressurise the judiciary to give a verdict favourable to them in the Panama case. He had criticised the lapsed military courts for their inadequacies and opposed their revival/extension. Mahmoodur Rasheed lambasted the minister for suggesting that some ‘forces’ were out to oust Nawaz Sharif by counter-arguing that the incumbent prime minister had grown (if not grown up) in the company of these very forces, which therefore posed no threat to him. He was also critical of Sanaullah’s ‘name-calling’ the establishment and Imran Khan. Now for Rana Sanaullah’s defence. Taking up the last first, Sanaullah denied his pointed comments were aimed at Imran Khan. Rather he had meant an Imran ally, Sheikh Rasheed. The latter’s usual off-the-cuff remarks lately included a reference to the ‘coffin’ of the incumbent rulers having to be taken out of the Supreme Court once the verdict in the Panama case was announced. Sanaullah hit back by saying if ‘coffins’ was someone’s desire, they would emerge from every nook and corner in the event an elected prime minister was removed in this manner. The people, the minister asserted, would not accept the ousting of the political leadership through “non-political and undemocratic” means. In any case the minister expressed complete confidence in the judiciary and prophesied the government would be vindicated in the case. As to ‘forces’, the minister tried to clear the air (and minimise any risk) by saying he was referring to those who held sit-ins. The entire episode reeks of inappropriateness. First, the Speaker’s unnecessary obstruction of the normal thrust and parry of parliamentary debate. Second, transcending the norm of not discussing a sub judice matter until it is decided. Third, making institutions of state such as the judiciary and military unnecessarily controversial. But for the sake of fairness, it must be said that breach of restraint regarding a sub judice matter has been on display since the Panama case hearing started. The media hype around the case picks through every word and twitch of an eyebrow during the proceedings and tries to make a ‘case’ out of it. Let alone ministers, every Tom, Dick and Harry feels free to comment ‘expertly’ on the proceedings. The Supreme Court for its part has shown monumental patience with this media circus so far, the bench resisting a request for a gag order but cautioning all to let the court do its work. As to Rana Sanaullah and other ministers of his ilk, they may be better served, and serve their government better, were they to confine themselves to their respective portfolios and leave the task of defending the government or delineating its policies to official spokesmen appointed by the government. That may usher in some peace and quiet, not to mention appropriateness in the manner in which issues of public import are handled.

Business Recorder Column Jan 23, 2017

A divided house Rashed Rahman US President Donald Trump’s inauguration was apiece with his election campaign and underlined how divided American society is in its aftermath. The President’s inauguration speech, for example, instead of following the tradition of assuring the American people, especially those who voted against the winner, that the incoming incumbent was leaving the differences of electoral rivalry behind and reaching out in an inclusive way to all Americans, sounded like a rerun of his election campaign rhetoric and thereby served to harden the divisions he had authored in his bid for the White House. On inauguration day, violent protests broke out in Washington DC, leading to the use of pepper spray and worse by the police and ending up with some 200 arrests. But the remarkable mobilisation of over one million people, led by and mostly composed of women, all over the US and a similar number in the rest of the world was notable not only for the numbers but the discipline, peaceful assembly and incredible organisation on show. The women’s march organisers had wisely broadened their appeal beyond women’s rights feared to face a reversal under Trump to include immigrant rights, police brutality, mass incarceration, voter suppression and environmental protection. The women’s march therefore led a rainbow coalition of all the potential victims of Donald Trump the erstwhile candidate, now holding the most powerful office in the world. For those hoping that Trump the combative, aggressive and arrogant candidate would give way pragmatically to the demands of leading the country, and arguably the world, Trump the president disappointed them. His inaugural speech, whose leit motif was “America first!”, translated out as “Me first!” Having delivered an address that hardened the divisions thrown up during the election campaign, Trump then journeyed to the CIA’s headquarters in Langley, Virginia. Speaking before the wall that honours CIA agents who lost their lives in the line of duty, Trump talked less about the CIA, briefly tried to mend fences with the intelligence community he had roundly attacked during the election, and predictably soon moved on to his own priorities, amongst which, apart from boasting about his victory, speculating on how many members of the military and CIA voted for him and continuing his attacks on the media took pride of place. Welcome to a self-obsessed so-called leader of the ‘free world’. The women’s march organisers and the broader coalition they have succeeded in forging hope to continue their momentum to build a sustained protest campaign in a polarised society riven by an election that raised questions about American values, out-of-touch-elites and barriers to women’s advancement. On successive days, inauguration day on January 20 and the day after, two parallel, separate United States of America were on display in virtually the same physical space. That indicates the shape of things to come at home in the US. What of the rest of the world? What can it expect or look forward to? First and foremost, Trump’s arguments about globalisation damaging US economic interests, taking away manufacturing, jobs, etc, to other countries indicate a return to economic and general nationalism, reversing the role the US assumed in world affairs since the Second World War. That means not only reviving the ‘rust belts’ of abandoned factories in the US and theoretically restoring lost jobs in manufacturing, but also a declared intent to reverse the decades old trend towards multilateralism, trade cooperation and forging coalitions of countries with similar interests. The ground realities, however, if and when Trump wraps his head around them, reflect the truth that job losses in the US are owed as much to automation as free global trade. US industrial output has increased because of the former factor even as manufacturing jobs have shrunk. The western alliance may come under strain, particularly if Trump carries through his promise to stop financing the militaries of other countries while the US military is deprived of resources. Free trade agreements are likely to receive the chop or be renegotiated in the US’s favour (if possible, though unlikely). Washington’s confrontation/s with Russia during the Obama years are likely to abate, while anti-China rhetoric and actions on the one China policy, Beijing’s territorial claims in the South and East China Seas and China’s alleged trade and investment advantages at the US's cost could ratchet up tensions with the new emerging superpower. Trump is very clear on eliminating ‘Islamic terrorism’ off the face of the earth. That could mean backing (despite Washington’s absence from the Kazakhstan talks) Russian attempts to negotiate a political settlement in Syria that leaves Bashar al-Assad in power. Trump is on record as regretting the chaos and destabilisation in the Middle East and North Africa caused by the overthrow through direct invasion or by backing proxies of Saddam Hussein in Iraq and Muammar Gaddafi in Libya. US interventionism may therefore be scaled down, if not abandoned. Under Trump, in the name of reviving the US, the country may call a pause, if not a halt, to Washington's policing the world in its own interests. That would be a policy change that would go unmourned in large parts of the world. On Afghanistan, Trump bemoans the longest US war ever and the cost ($ 100 billion plus) by asserting that Washington did not succeed because it did not use the full panoply of its undoubted power. The idea sounds seductive on the surface, but betrays Trump’s lack of knowledge regarding the kind of war the US is fighting there. A Taliban insurgency with safe havens on Pakistani soil cannot just be blasted out of existence, as Trump seems to be implying. Guerrilla and asymmetrical warfare is a different ballgame. However, the threat of far more intrusive and open strikes against the Afghan Taliban’s safe havens in Pakistan cannot be ruled out. If that transpires the US-Pakistan relationship is headed further south. Islamabad may be weighing its options by substituting China and Russia for a reluctant US ally, but the implications of Washington turning more hostile cannot be lost on Islamabad’s political, economic and strategic managers. rashed.rahman1@gmail.com rashed-rahman.blogspot.com

Business Recorder editorial Jan 22, 2017

Reinventing the PPP The PPP, after the government failed to heed its chairman Bilawal Bhutto Zardari’s four demands, decided to hold a series of processions as part of its drive to revive the fortunes of the party in its lost stronghold of Punjab. The four demands were: revival of the parliamentary committee on national security, acceptance of the PPP’s bill on the Panama Papers, appointment of a foreign minister, and implementation of the All Parties Conference resolution on the China Pakistan Economic Corridor. For the first manifestation of this mobilisational strategy, Bilawal led a rally from Lahore to Faisalabad on January 20 . But the reception in Faisalabad proved a pale shadow of the past in what was once a PPP fortress. The loyal but disgruntled PPP workers who turned out to greet and listen to their young leader had their own take on the affairs of the party. The message they conveyed to Bilawal was that there was a pressing need to reinvent the party as worker friendly, otherwise its revival in Punjab will remain just a dream. Others pointed to how the arrogance of the party leaders had annoyed the workers. Differences among the leaders and the defection to other parties of some of those leaders had further disheartened the workers. Until 2008, the PPP won just about every constituency in Faisalabad. But in the 2013 elections, the party suffered a humiliating defeat in a sign of the changed times. That downturn (as in Punjab generally) is the legacy of the previous Punjab PPP leadership (and by extrapolation the central leadership of the party). Bilawal tried to reassure the workers that their apprehensions would be removed. He seemed aware of their low morale. Armed with this knowledge, he embarked on interviews of the local leaders for party offices. In his speech to the rally, Bilawal admitted that being the opposition in Punjab was not an easy job. The reasons are not hard to divine. The PPP in Punjab has been dubbed a ‘friendly’ opposition. To add to its woes, the party faces a PML-N in power in the province whose hold seems unassailable at present. This strength is owed in no small measure to the culture of patronage that defines the PML-N style of politics, apart from its deep roots in the business community and the bazaar. It is the PTI of Imran Khan that through its confrontational tactics has positioned itself in the public imagination as the party that is far ahead in second place than the PPP. The PPP hopes to establish itself as the main opposition in Punjab and pick up a few seats in the process. That implies that its main rival and real target at present is the PTI rather than the ruling party. But this is still a tall mountain to climb. Over the past five years or so, the PPP seems to have steadily lost hope of recapturing its former stronghold in southern Punjab, while at the same time it became increasingly irrelevant in the rest of the province. The PPP’s foray into Punjab under the leadership of Bilawal seems to have a dual purpose: ramp up pressure on Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif over the Panama case and re-establish the party as a force to be reckoned with, with an eye on the 2018 elections. But to have any chance of getting anywhere near these goalposts, the PPP has to return to the drawing board. The four demands around which the present rallies drive is centred are unlikely to rouse its demoralised workers, let alone the people of Punjab generally. The demands may have their own importance, but they are not about to set off any conflagration in Punjab since they have little relevance to ordinary people’s lives and problems. Symbolism and the constant references to the martyrdom of Zulfikar Ali Bhutto and Benazir Bhutto do not seem any longer to be a sufficient condition for the revival of the party in its erstwhile Punjab stronghold. On the one hand, there is an argument that the PPP currently should be focusing on rebuilding its grassroots organisation rather than showpiece rallies. On the other hand, without the kind of left of centre political programme that defined the original élan of the party, it may find it difficult to demarcate itself from the rest of the political pack. Last but not least, the PPP government in Sindh needs to improve its governance performance to give its Punjab section a reasonable chance of making a dent.