Business Recorder editorial June 29, 2016

ECP references The Pakistan People’s Party (PPP) has followed in the footsteps of the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaaf (PTI) in filing a reference before the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) against Prime Minister (PM) Nawaz Sharif, Punjab Chief Minister Shahbaz Sharif, Finance Minister Ishaq Dar, daughter of the PM Maryam Sharif’s MNA husband Mohammad Safdar, and Shahbaz Sharif’s son MNA Hamza Shahbaz. The reference seeks their disqualification on the basis of Articles 62 and 63 of the Constitution. However, the ECP has given both the PTI and PPP references short shrift in rejecting them as the ECP cannot entertain them in the light of the provisions of Articles 62 and 63 as well as sections 52-56 of the Representation of People Act 1976. Article 63(2), the ECP quotes, lays down that disqualification of elected parliamentarians has to follow the procedure of first approaching the Speaker of the National Assembly or Chairman of the Senate, as the case may be, to ascertain within 30 days of any such reference being moved whether prima facie a case exists for referring the matter to the ECP. In the event that the Speaker or Chairman fails to do so within the 30-day stipulated period, it shall be deemed to have been referred to the ECP. Upon receipt of such a reference, according to Article 63(3), the ECP is obliged to decide the question within 90 days, and if it is of the opinion that the member has become disqualified, he shall cease to be a member and his seat will fall vacant. Further, according to section 52(2) of the Representation of People Act 1976, a contesting candidate alone can file a disqualification reference and that too within 45 days of the election. Even a contesting candidate’s reference cannot be entertained after the 45-day deadline. The question then arises, given that there are so many legal luminaries in the ranks of both the PTI and PPP, why have they chosen to ignore these clear provisions of the Constitution and law? The question strengthens the suspicion that this is mere political posturing, point scoring, and an attempt to keep the government under pressure and on the back foot. Why have these two leading opposition parties, whose weight in the opposition ranks negotiating the Terms of Reference (ToRs) of the proposed commission on the Panama leaks affair is critical, chosen this seemingly fruitless path of first approaching the ECP for disqualification of the PM and some members of his family? First and foremost, several rounds of meetings between the two sides to come to consensus ToRs proved infructuous. The gulf between the opposition’s insistence that the commission first investigate the PM and his family’s offshore companies, properties and wealth, and the government’s desire to broaden the investigation to include all offshore companies/wealth owners, was the rock on which the negotiations foundered. Creeping exasperation, first in the PTI, later in the PPP, with what were perceived as the government’s dilatory, time-buying tactics and demands, soon put paid to any chance of consensus ToRs. Now there reports that since both these major opposition arties have withdrawn from the negotiations, the government may be contemplating framing those ToRs by a majority with the help of some smaller parties. Whether this is feasible only time will tell, but even if it transpires, it is obvious that without the PTI and PPP on board, any commission formed in this manner will be stillborn, even if it goes through the motions of investigation. The government has assessed the opposition’s tactics after withdrawal from the negotiations as opting for the ‘legal’ route rather than street agitation, which was being touted at one high point of frustration. Reports say the government is happy at this turn of events, presumably because it fits neatly within its strategy of procrastination and time-buying on the Panama affair. While the ECP-rejected references still have the house chair option, the superior courts too may be approached. The wisdom of an on the surface abortive approach to the ECP may be difficult to comprehend, except as part of the opposition’s strategy of keeping the government under pressure, but the unanswered question remains, to what end? The PTI is no respecter of our democratic system and may even be prepared to go outside the constitutional framework if advantage beckons, but the PPP has consistently stood for the system, including during Imran Khan’s long sit-in. Where all this is headed is still unclear, but the portents of polarisation and confrontation seem worryingly close.

Business Recorder editorial June 28, 2016

Foreign policy conundrum Foreign Affairs Advisor Sartaj Aziz’s briefing to journalists on Monday exuded (between the lines of course) an air of gloom and paralysis as far as Pakistan’s foreign policy is concerned. The briefing naturally focused on arguably the four most important relationships with foreign countries, three of whom are our immediate neighbours and the fourth a distant superpower. First and foremost, Sartaj Aziz was pessimistic regarding the prospect of ties with India improving any time soon. Instead, he argued, the situation called for management to avoid an increase in tensions, i.e. a minimalist, conservative management approach given the intractability of certain issues and the current atmosphere of a resurgence of suspicion and mistrust between Islamabad and New Delhi. Terrorism remains the main focus of the latter, while the former insists on all issues being put on the table, including the Kashmir question. Sartaj Aziz complained that India does not want to give us credit for our actions against terrorism and keeps using that as an excuse for not restarting the bilateral suspended dialogue. Normalisation of relations on India’s terms was not acceptable to Pakistan, Sartaj Aziz emphasised, and neither would Pakistan back down on its principled stance (i.e. all issues, including Kashmir, should be on the agenda). On relations with Afghanistan, Sartaj Aziz was equally pessimistic regarding the Afghan reconciliation process. Since the prospects were not good, he argued, all now depended on the ground situation in that country. Elimination of the Afghan Taliban chief Mullah Akhtar Mansour by a drone last month had sabotaged the peace dialogue. His successor, reportedly even more a hardliner, could not be asked to join the peace process. Perhaps the only way the Afghan Taliban could now be persuaded to return to the negotiating table would be if they failed to gain their objectives in the ongoing spring/summer offensive. In other words, only if the Taliban are convinced that they cannot gain all or any of what they want tactically or strategically on the battlefield might they be persuaded to return to talks. Pakistan could not take all the responsibility for bringing the Taliban to the table but could use whatever influence it had with the group to facilitate the process. Aziz also pointed out that the Afghan authorities were divided about engaging the Taliban and therefore clarity was lacking on how to take the process forward. Pakistan’s role, Aziz underlined, could not be substituted but blamed Kabul for being bogged down by historical baggage and therefore unable to see Pakistan’s major policy shift since 2013. On the repeated US and Afghan allegations of Pakistan not adequately moving against the Haqqani network, Aziz said though the objective was common, it was a matter of sequencing and timing. New coordination mechanisms agreed with Afghan Foreign Minister Salahuddin Rabbani in Tashkent on the sidelines of the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation would help address those concerns, leading also to better border management, Aziz revealed (and hopefully avoid the kind of border clashes seen in recent days). If at all there was a note of optimism, it was in Sartaj Aziz’s assertion that relations with the US were heading in the right direction despite recent setbacks such as the cancellation of the F-16 deal and continuing concerns about our nuclear programme. On Iran, the Advisor pointed to the balance being maintained between Tehran and Riyadh. Confirming Iranian President Rouhani’s statement after his visit to Pakistan that the issue of alleged Indian intelligence agent Kulbushan Jadhav was not raised during the president’s meeting with COAS General Raheel Sharif, Aziz revealed only a general concern about such activities from Iranian soil was conveyed. Advisors naturally are required to put the best gloss on their portfolio. However, the more Sartaj Aziz tried to argue Pakistan’s case vis-à-vis relations with the countries mentioned above, the more it became clear that Pakistan has problems at one level or another with all of them. According to former foreign minister Hina Rabbani Khar, this is because (like in all other spheres) ours is a reactive rather than active foreign policy. Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi in an interview says he does not know who to talk to in Pakistan (a hint at the perceived civil-military divide here). While not questioning the verity or weight of Sartaj Aziz’s explanations, the irreducible fact remains that even his survey leaves the indelible impression that Pakistan is bogged down with problems in all its important relationships outlined above. Surely that calls for revisiting our present course, exploring areas of convergence, restoring, to the extent possible, normal if not friendly ties with all our neighbours and Washington. But to even begin such a journey, perhaps first and foremost there is a need for a fulltime foreign minister.

Business Recorder column June 27, 2016

Brexit fallout Rashed Rahman The shock result of the British referendum to leave the European Union (EU) has had immediate effects and fallouts for Britain, the EU and the world. Uncertainty has gripped the markets ($ 2.1 trillion shaved off worldwide), exposed fissures in the western alliance, and deepened the regional, generational and occupational divide in British society. All these are obviously unhelpful for managing the ongoing global recession and hopes for economic recovery. Whether these are long term effects that could exacerbate the global economic crisis, only time will tell, but there are deeper long term implications of this development that mirror these short term trends and bear introspection. Three profound impacts can be determined even at this early stage: 1) implications for the unity of the United Kingdom (UK); 2) effects on the western alliance, including NATO; 3) the fallout for a world wedded since the end of the Cold War to integration, opening up of trade and borders and globalisation (of which the first three are an integral part. The UK now faces calls from Scotland for a new referendum on independence from Britain, a question asked and rejected by 55 percent of the Scottish electorate just two years ago. Scotland, unlike the overall countrywide result of 52 percent for leaving the EU as opposed to 48 percent voting to stay, overwhelmingly elected to remain within the EU. The Scottish Nationalists are already arguing that the UK they voted to stay in two years ago no longer exists. Northern Ireland too voted overwhelmingly to stay, and is now chafing at the bit. However, this sentiment is negated by the pro-UK Protestant majority in that province. Cosmopolitan London and the young throughout the country voted to stay, while ‘angry old men’, those feeling left behind by globalisation, fearing immigration taking away jobs and lowering wages (fears played on to the hilt by the Leave campaign), voted to depart. These regional, generational and occupational differences promise more strife to come. The US is clearly disappointed by the outcome. It reiterated its commitment to the special relationship with Britain and close ties with Europe (particularly NATO), but questions now hover over whether the western alliance will be able to function with quite the same cohesion and common purpose as it has since 1945. Any such weakening of the western alliance will bring benefits to China’s emergence as a global power and Russia’s revival from the ashes of the Soviet Union. The post-World War II world changed profoundly in 1991 with the collapse of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War. But this brave new world had its own nasty surprises lurking. The horizontal expansion of capitalism into the former socialist bloc, vertical effects in terms of unequal worldwide income and wealth distribution globally, the increasing dominance of finance capital over the real economy, all these factors fed into the global recession that began in 2007. The world has yet to discover how this system can be nudged forward out of the present crisis. The fallout does not end here. Internal British politics (apart from Scotland and Northern Ireland) has been roiled. The Conservative Party faces a bitter leadership struggle after Prime Minister David Cameron announced his decision to leave by October, while the Labour Party faces a revolt by a significant section of the leadership against its leader, Jeremy Corbyn. Arguably, Cameron could have done without calling the referendum. It was an attempt to quell the Eurosceptic right within his party, as well as counter the rise of the EU-hating (and baiting) UK Independence Party (UKIP). But the move badly backfired. The Leave camp played on irrational fears and insecurities (as the ‘morning after’ revelations of the hollowness of its claims and promises indicate), which triumphed over good sense and Britain’s own interests. Both Cameron’s government and the opposition Labour Party (particularly its leader Corbyn) ran a weak and lacklustre Remain campaign that could not match the emotionally charged notions of the Leave campaign to recover so-called independence from a distant, bureaucratic rule by Brussels (the EU capital). The British media too was heavily skewed in favour of leaving, and failed to frame the debate in a manner that would inform, educate and enlighten its audience. There are lessons here for us in Pakistan regarding how an irresponsible media can wreak havoc to a country’s future and intrinsic interests. The outcome of the referendum therefore can be regarded as a protest vote fuelled by fear, anger and ignorance. Now that some of the wild claims and promises of the Leave campaign are being punctured, causing the leading lights of that side of the divide to retreat on their most extreme positions, afterthoughts seem to be creeping into the public sphere, including a petition signed by over two million people for another Brexit referendum. Whether the result can be reversed is highly unlikely, especially since European leaders are impatient and angry with Britain and want the exit process speeded up. Britain may well, in the wake of Brexit, be facing a fresh election by next year. Brexit will obviously be at the heart of all parties’ campaigns, whether for or against, and may well strengthen the forces of the right that successfully exploited paranoia, hate and preconceived notions to mislead the public and win. British politics may therefore be heading for a polarisation that would erode the positions of centrist parties like the Conservative and Labour Parties at the hands of rightist and leftist challengers from within and without. Whether the world will come out of the slough of despond it seems to have fallen into post-Brexit remains in the realm of conjecture. But certainly there are questions regarding the architecture of a post-Brexit new world. Meantime it would not be remiss to ponder how Britain, the great historic ‘divide and rule’ practitioner, appears to have been hoist on its own petard. rashed.rahman1@gmail.com

Business Recorder Editorial June 25, 2016

A painful ‘divorce’ The British referendum’s result has produced nothing less than a shock wave that has travelled beyond the UK’s boundaries to shake the European Union (EU) to its core, and the rest of the world in its pocket. After 43 years of being part of the EU, the British vote saw a high 72 percent turnout, with a final 52 to 48 percent decision to leave. The outcome is not only a blow to the dream of a united Europe, it runs counter to the contemporary trend towards globalisation. The ‘Leave’ vote exposed the fissures in British society, with older people who felt left behind by globalization and blamed EU immigration for low wages turning their backs on Europe, while the young, Scotland and Northern Ireland voted overwhelmingly to remain. The Scottish Nationalists, having lost an independence referendum in 2014, reasserted the need for a fresh independence referendum given their overwhelming two-thirds majority in favour of staying in the EU. The irony is that the Scots seem to want to stay in a 43-year-old union with Europe from which they say they are being parted against their wishes, while seeking to break away from a hundreds of years old union within the UK. Northern Ireland’s case, despite a majority vote in favour of staying, is complicated as far as any notion of breaking away and joining the Irish Republic to the south is concerned, because of the opposition to the idea of the pro-UK Protestant majority in the territory. British Prime Minister David Cameron clearly miscalculated, failing to effectively counter the Leave campaign’s rhetoric stoking xenophobic fears, atavistic hatreds and scapegoating immigration. In the best British democratic tradition though, Cameron has announced he will step down in October in deference to the expressed will of the British electorate. His likely successor may or may not be former London mayor Boris Johnson, who lent a late but credible voice to the Leave campaign. Britain, a latecomer (1973) to the EU, is the first major power to leave it. This has inevitably given rise to questions about the future of the EU. The reaction of EU leaders ranged from shock and introspection about the need to ‘invent’ another Europe (French Prime Minister Manuel Valls) to more considered responses and thoughtfulness regarding what is being considered a watershed for European unification (Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany). A flurry of European leaders’ meetings is to follow the shock development in the next few days to consider the vexed question of the difficult negotiations ahead regarding the UK’s withdrawal terms. The EU rules specify a two-year period for this process, which can only be extended by EU members’ consensus. Given the discernible underlying anger throughout the EU leadership over the referendum result, it seems that Britain will have its work cut out for it in these difficult negotiations. Naturally, London would prefer to retain some if not all of the advantages of EU membership (market access, London’s role as financial capital, etc.) while shedding political control from the EU capital Brussels. One model being touted as a possible solution is the Switzerland one, in which access to the EU single market and labour mobility is available but permanent settlement or acquiring citizenship by ‘guest workers’ is not. EU leaders’ sentiment in the aftermath of the referendum seems to be a hard line on Britain now speeding up if possible the ‘irreversible’ exit process. The predictions about the fallout of an exit vote have already started to kick in, with both Britain’s and the world’s markets, finance community and investors showing signs of skittishness, panic and gloom. The British pound has fallen precipitously, and some experts think the UK may well tip into recession within a year. While the vote has strengthened far right leaders and parties across Europe, it has also emboldened them and many Eurosceptics to demand similar referenda in their own countries. These ‘unravelling’ threats are going to be on top of EU leaders’ consultations, as well as a smooth divorce from Britain. The political and economic architecture of the contemporary world will likely have to be revisited, bilaterally by Britain, and collectively by the rest of the developed world. While EU leaders are seized of the need to ensure that the idea of a unified Europe as a guarantee of European peace that can avoid a repetition of the destructiveness of the two World Wars of the twentieth century survives this jolt, it may also have to reckon with the widespread sense of disillusionment with the EU that afflicts many countries in Europe and on which the far right feeds. What needs to be avoided is a return to the system of competing rival nation-states in Europe that provided in the past the fuel for devastating wars and conflict. The EU may have its flaws, but as an antidote to the nation-states’ proclivity for mutual conflict, it has yet to be superseded by a better idea.

Business Recorder editorial June 22, 2016

Refugee deluge The UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) has reported on World Refugee Day, June 20, that persecution and conflict in countries such as Syria and Afghanistan has raised the total number of refugees and internally displaced people worldwide to a record 65.3 million at the end of last year. Turkey had the largest number for the second year running at 2.5 million people, nearly all from neighbouring Syria. Pakistan had a residual 1.6 million from Afghanistan while Lebanon hosted 1.1 million. This 65.3 million is the highest figure since World War II, itself the harbinger of the greatest refugee populace in global history till that point. In 2014 the refugee and displaced persons total had already reached 60 million, but 2015 saw Lebanon, Turkey and Europe stagger under the weight of a human deluge of proportions seldom seen before. UNHCR has appealed to global leaders to bend their backs to end the wars that are fanning this mass exodus. The UNHCR report starkly highlights the scale of the problem by pointing out that on average 24 people had been displaced per minute last year, which amounts to 34,000 people per day. Global displacement has doubled since 1997 and risen by 50 percent since 2011, when the Syrian war began. Counting the global population as 7.349 billion currently, one out of every 113 people on Earth is now internally displaced or a refugee. They currently number more than the populations of Britain or France. Of the total 65.3 million, 40.8 million remain within their own country (internally displaced), 21.3 million have fled across borders as refugees, while the remaining are asylum seekers. The world’s largest and oldest refugee populace is still the Palestinians at over five million, dating back to the creation of Israel in 1948. Syria now has the dubious distinction of being next on the list with 4.9 million refugees, followed by Afghanistan (2.7 million) and Somalia (1.1 million). These figures, horrendous as they are, do not convey fully the human stories and images that flesh out this desperate exodus of humanity from war-torn countries. The issue, as seen in the refugee crisis in Europe of late, is fraught since it encompasses religion, race, immigration, etc. It is politically charged and has been used to justify xenophobia, scapegoating, hatred and intolerance. In the US and Europe, it has fuelled the rise of neo-fascism (Trump and the far right respectively). Leaders such as Germany’s Angela Merkel, who took a compassionate view of the refugees’ plight, stand out as the exception, and not without being attacked at home and in Europe by the far right. Pakistan too has hosted millions of Afghan refugees since the 1980s following the Soviet invasion and occupation of their country. Although their numbers have dwindled relatively over the years, they continue to be singled out from time to time, and especially when a major terrorist incident occurs or the issue of tackling criminality reappears on the agenda. This trend seems to be increasing of late. Since Pakistan’s recent crackdown on Afghans entering Pakistan illegally (a practice allowed since 1947), the hostility towards such persons has received an ‘official’ fillip (250 Afghans who entered Pakistan illegally were deported on June 21 after waiting for days for the border skirmishes at Torkham to subside). Advisor on Foreign Affairs Sartaj Aziz said in a television interview the other day that Afghan refugee camps had become safe havens for terrorists and that the Afghan refugees had brought drugs, guns and instability to Pakistan. While such perceptions are not new and may even carry weight, creeping weariness with the long standing presence of millions of Afghan refugees on our soil notwithstanding (during which time successive governments virtually allowed these refugees a free run inside Pakistan), we should refrain from sweeping statements that in today’s context resemble the vitriol being heaped on the refugees’ heads in the west. Nowhere in the world is the life of a refugee a bed of roses. Displaced people all over the world, no matter what their country of origin or circumstances, would prefer to go home if it is possible and viable. But to achieve this desirable goal, conflicts and wars, old and new, that have given birth to this immense and continuing human tragedy, would have to be brought to a close and the powers-that-be to abjure the kind of regime change and direct military interventions that have given rise to today’s enormous refugee phenomenon in the first place.

Business Recorder editorial June 18, 2016

A government adrift The parliamentary committee on appointment of Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) members has elected Information Minister Pervaiz Rashid as its chairman on Friday. The government has belatedly woken up to the urgency of expediting the process of appointment of four members of the non-functional ECP after its members representing the four provinces retired. It is not as though their impending retirement was not known in advance. Yet the government, in what seems to have become its functioning style, failed to plan for the transition in timely fashion. As in so many other instances, the government has fallen into the habit of eleventh hour responses to even tasks that are constitutionally required. The hiatus in the functioning of the ECP after the four members' retirement has brought its work grinding to a halt. By-elections as well as the completion of indirect local bodies elections for nazims, etc, not to mention the oath taking of local elected representatives, a lapse that caused much consternation and anger in Karachi the other day when the oath taking of mayor and other local bodies representatives was cancelled at the last minute. The government seems so distracted by the Panama leaks and the illness of Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif as to resemble a rudderless ship without a firm hand on the tiller. Whether it is security or foreign policy or even domestic political, economic and social issues, the government appears adrift and in purely reactive mode, without much evidence of forethought or forward planning. To cover up this dysfunction, the government, in the shape of Finance Minister Ishaq Dar in the Senate, tried to put forward a mea culpa by stating that the government wanted to initiate and complete the appointments process earlier, but the 22nd Constitutional Amendment Bill seeking to broaden the criteria for appointment as members of the ECP beyond its previous confinement to members of the judiciary or individuals qualified to be appointed to the judiciary, could not be passed on the government's preferred date of May 19 because of a lack of the two-thirds majority required in parliament. He also expressed his government's intent to put an electoral reforms package before parliament, for which a draft unified electoral law was almost ready and all election rules and laws were being consolidated for the purpose. He also stated that the government would send 12 names, three for each province, to the parliamentary committee by Saturday. Senate Chairman Raza Rabbani found it necessary to observe that the government could have started the process earlier and pointed out that the 22nd Constitutional Amendment Bill was passed by the Senate on June 2 and sent to the President for his assent the same day, but he chose to sit on it for seven days. Rabbani told the government that its proposed electoral reforms package would have to be brought to parliament in the form of another constitutional amendment. The rules governing the ECP state that any member slots to be filled have to be done within 45 days of a vacancy. It remains to be seen whether at the present tardy pace, the deadline will be met or not. Articles 213 and 218 lay down the provisions for the appointment of the Chief Election Commissioner and ECP members. They require that the prime minister, in consultation with the leader of the opposition, forward three names for appointment to every vacant post of the ECP to the parliamentary committee. If there is no consensus between the two sides on the names, they are required to forward separate lists to the committee for consideration, deliberation, and confirmation of one name for each slot. The government's performance on this score underlines its inability to deal with either weighty or routine matters in a timely and efficient manner. Given the controversies that dogged the last general election in 2013, it is imperative that a credible ECP, acceptable to and enjoying the confidence of all the parties and the public, be installed so as to make future elections controversy-free. The democratic system cannot achieve overall credibility unless the first step, free and fair elections whose results are accepted by all stakeholders, become the norm.

Business Recorder editorial June 15, 2016

Orlando fallout The Orlando, Florida massacre of 49 people with another 53 wounded by a US-born man of Afghan origin has evoked an atmosphere of hate and fear mongering inside the US and in Europe. It has directly impacted the ongoing presidential race, with Donald Trump stoking the fires of prejudice and Islamophobia. Initially during his run for the Republican nomination, Trump wanted all Muslim immigration to the US banned. By now, perhaps because he was condemned roundly for going against the basic founding tenets of the US, he has ‘retreated’ to only wanting immigration from areas with a proven track record of terrorism banned. Topping his list of countries from which immigration should be banned are Pakistan, Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia and Somalia. He then went on to argue that Islamic State (IS) was recruiting American Muslims to fight in the US, and ‘taking over’ American children to convince them how wonderful IS and Islam are. Political correctness, he declared, cripples the ability to talk, think and act clearly (aimed no doubt at President Barack Obama). Hillary Clinton, on the other hand, his Democratic rival in the presidential race, warned against demonising American Muslims. Such inflammatory rhetoric, she cautioned, makes the US less safe, while talk of banning Muslim immigration was offensive and counterproductive. The US’s open, diverse society, she argued, was an asset in the struggle against terrorism, not a liability. Islam is not our adversary, Muslims are peaceful and tolerant and have nothing to do with terrorism, she emphasised. The exchange of statements between the two front runners in the US presidential race and the commentary going on in the US media indicates that the Orlando tragedy has placed Muslims centre-stage once again in the presidential race. It has been there before, especially after the San Bernardino, California incident of December 2, 2015, when a couple of Pakistani origin killed 14 people at a party. However, the high casualty count in Orlando, and its proximity to the presidential election on November 8, 2016, has ensured it will remain a major issue throughout the campaign. Across the Atlantic, European far right parties and forces are portraying the wave of refugees and immigrants inundating its shores as a serious threat. Terrorist attacks in Paris, Brussels, etc, have fed into this scare mongering. In Britain, on the eve of its Brexit referendum, the ‘out’ campaigners are warning against an Orlando-type terrorist incident arriving in Britain if it remains within the European Union. It does not seem that incidents like these, including the knifing to death of a police commander and his partner in France by a French-born, Moroccan-origin man, are necessarily IS-controlled. The ‘lone wolf’, IS-inspired phenomenon has arrived with a vengeance. Unlike al-Qaeda, which prefers organized, planned attacks, IS’s message is radicalizing the progeny of immigrant parents to carry out these bloody attacks that are indiscriminate in nature. The Orlando incident may or may not have had a homophobic aspect to it, but the blood of the innocent spilt there drowns out such nuances. The reaction from the Right, hate, fear mongering and Islamophobia, are providing the terrorists an effective propaganda tool. This may have global repercussions since it plays into the hands of groups like IS, whose thesis is built upon the foundation that the west hates Muslims per se. Relations between the Muslim world and the west, particularly the US (thanks to Trump) may deteriorate amongst a welter of accusations and counter-accusations, deepening and widening the gulf that has already appeared because of terrorist attacks by a few fanatics on western soil. Pakistan is already feeling the wind of US alienation because of the Afghan conundrum. Other Muslim countries, even those well disposed towards the west, may soon find the space for friendship shrinking. That promises a world riven by even more conflict, terrorism and war. To pull humanity back from this brink requires sensible parties and forces in the west to combat this castigation of an entire religion and its believers and equally, such forces in the Muslim world are required to create an effective narrative against the distorted version of Islam put out by the terrorists, as well as continuing actions to put them out of business.

Business Recorder editorial June 14, 2016

Afghan border tension Tensions have flared up for the second time in two months on the Torkham border crossing with Afghanistan. Last month, an exchange of firing took place between the security forces on both sides, which persuaded Pakistan to close the border for five days. The issue was the construction of a gate on the Pakistani side, which Islamabad says is necessary for better border management and to prevent the entry of terrorists from Afghanistan. Now again the same issue has flared up since June 12 when an attempt by the Pakistani forces to construct the same gate met with harsh words and then firing from the Afghan side, resulting in 10 army, Frontier Corps and Khasadar Force personnel being wounded, along with six civilians. One army major has since succumbed to his wounds. Retaliatory firing by the Pakistani forces, reinforced by military units with heavy weapons and tanks, inflicted casualties on the Afghan side in which one soldier was killed and six wounded. The exchange of fire started on Sunday and continued through Monday. Both countries summoned their respective envoys and delivered strong protests. This is by now a well known pattern of events between the two sides. It needs to be understood that the Afghans are angry with Pakistan for recent reasons as well as those rooted in history. The latter revolve around the Afghan view that the Durand Line, which marks the border between the two countries, is a colonial imposition and therefore rejected. What follows from this position are irredentist claims to the Pashtun areas within Pakistan. The former have to do with Afghan perceptions that their troubles over the last 15 years stem from Pakistan allowing safe havens to the Afghan Taliban on Pakistani soil since 2001. Irredentist claims have no place in today’s world. Colonialism may have drawn arbitrary lines according to its own convenience in many parts of the world, but there would be few takers today for opening the Pandora’s box of trying to accommodate the conflicting claims of post-colonial states. Afghanistan therefore is in splendid isolation on this score. As far as the other Afghan complaint is concerned, things have not remained static. The emergence of homegrown terrorists with alleged links to the Afghan Taliban has taken some of the sheen off the idea of this movement serving as a proxy strategic asset for Pakistan. Unfortunately though, the change in attitude on the Pakistani side has come late in the day, making it difficult to overcome suspicions inherited from the past. Pakistan argues that it cannot accede to the demands of the US and Kabul to ‘take action’ against the Afghan Taliban on its soil while at the same time being urged to bring them to the negotiating table. There is weight in that argument, as in the consideration that Pakistan cannot afford to open a new front against the Afghan Taliban when it already has its hands full with its own terrorists. However, the failure of Pakistan, and the Quadrilateral Group, to deliver the Afghan Taliban to the negotiating table has caused a resurgence of suspicions, allegations and charges of a duality of policy. Irrespective of this conundrum, little purpose is served by the present tensions on the border. As ANP chief Asfandyar Wali Khan has sensibly argued, these tensions and clashes on the border are not in the interests of either country or their peoples. They will only increase the problems of people on either side and make cooperation against terrorism afflicting both countries (and therefore the common enemy) that much more difficult. It is therefore essential for bilateral relations and cross-border cooperation against terrorism that talks be held at the highest level between the two sides to defuse tensions. An example of Pakistani goodwill was the revelation to a Senate committee on June 13 by Foreign Secretary Aizaz Chaudhry that the Angoor Adda check post had not, as reports earlier claimed, been handed over to Afghanistan, but a gate had been constructed by Pakistan on the Afghan side as a gift. Perhaps that is the spirit required to pull both neighbouring countries out of the pit of continuing tension that periodically breaks out in armed conflict on the border and help the critical task of cooperation against terrorism of all hues and varieties.

Business Recorder column June 13, 2016

US shooting Rashed Rahman A US citizen of Afghan descent, Omar Mateen, gunned down 50 people and wounded another 53 in a gay club in Orlando, Florida on June 12. It is being described as the worst such atrocity in the country's history. The club presented a scene of carnage and splattered blood after the gunman opened fire with an assault rifle and a handgun, eventually persuading a police SWAT team to mount an assault. The gunman was killed and 30 people held hostage by him were freed. Many of the wounded are said to be in critical condition in hospital. The death toll therefore may well go up. Condemnations naturally came thick and fast, including from President Barack Obama. Initially, contradictory reports emerged whether the motivation for the shooting was religious extremism or homophobia. The latter explanation was offered by the shooter's father, who quoted an incident the other day in which Mateen got infuriated at the sight of two men kissing in the presence of his wife and child. Even if that impelled Mateen to attack a gay club, this was not the real or even complete picture. As information about Mateen poured out, it underlined a phenomenon of our times that threatens every right thinking human being on the planet. It turns out that Mateen was investigated by the FBI in 2013 and 2014 for possible links with Islamic extremism. However, the FBI could not find sufficient evidence to prove the links and closed the investigation. Mateen bought the two weapons he used to carry out the Orlando massacre a week before the attack. On the eve of his bloody spree, he called the police helpline 911 to declare his affiliation with Islamic State (IS). An ex-wife has described Mateen as mentally disturbed (bipolar) and violent. Meanwhile IS has indirectly owned Mateen through a terse statement issued by its Amaq agency that the Orlando attack was an IS operation. The Orlando authorities have declared there is no further threat but have imposed an emergency as a precaution. It is not clear whether the timing of the attack was purely subjective (as Mateen's father suggested) or had anything to do with the fact that this is Gay Pride month in the US. The FBI is treating the attack as a terrorist incident Three aspects of this horrific incident deserve comment. First, the immediate fallout of the massacre is the issue of terrorism and gun control arriving centre-stage in the US presidential race. Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton has cautioned against conflating the ethnic and religious identity of Mateen into a wholesale condemnation of Muslims or Islam. Arguing for a distinction between Islamist extremism/terrorism and the vast majority of American Muslims as well as Muslims all over the world, she said generalised condemnation on the basis of one individual's actions of an entire religious community or the religion per se would play into the hands of IS and similar groups that threaten all of us (Muslims first and foremost). In answer to a reporter's question, she interpreted a relatively recent decision of the US Supreme Court as providing justification for constitutionally mandated measures to ensure guns do not fall into the hands of terrorists or criminals through more thorough background checks. While the argument is unassailable, Mateen's case proves that an individual investigated in the past for possible extremist/terrorist connections/sympathies, had no difficulty purchasing a deadly automatic assault rifle and handgun. Clearly, the background checks have no universal data base for such gun buyers. Republican candidate Donald Trump, however, not unexpectedly, trumpeted an 'I told you so' claim to have been right on arguing for more stringent actions against terrorists, while ignoring the fact (conveniently) that his line of reasoning had relegated all Muslims (and others) indiscriminately to the doghouse. Trump is on the side of the gun lobby that hides its deadly trade behind the umbrella/facade of the US constitution's Second Amendment, guaranteeing the right of US citizens to bear arms. This is a classic case of a constitutional amendment adopted in the context of the US's war of independence and the period after when the new state had weak armed forces and was still imbued with ideas of people's militias protecting the citizenry being used for very different (and dangerous) purposes. The US no longer needs militias or terrorists and criminals using the loopholes in the law to lay their hands on deadly weapons and wreak the kind of mayhem seen in Orlando. Second, Omer Mateen's may be a case of a US-born child of Afghan immigrants fleeing war in their own country coming unhinged in the very different and incrementally tolerant of people's sexual and other choices kind of society that the US has/is becoming. The testimony of his ex-wife points in that direction. His father's account indicates his extreme reaction to a public manifestation of homosexuality (no longer unthinkable in the US). His mental state may have preceded his 'conversion' to hate-filled anger at the society he was alienated from and may even have facilitated it. Given these facts and his record of past investigation regarding links/sympathies with extremist/terrorist ideas, the failure of gun controls in place to deny such an obvious candidate for the appellation 'dangerous' from acquiring the means to kill is simply mind boggling. It goes to the heart of issues such as the problematic of integration of people of different backgrounds into an increasingly tolerant society, some of whose manifestations fill religious extremists with uncontrollable rage, and the clinging of wide sections of American public opinion to a distorted interpretation of a historically received right to bear arms in a completely different setting. Third, Omar Mateen's actions pose serious questions about the kind of mindset that lies behind such barbarism. Extremist religious dogma has grown into a monster that threatens enlightened humanity (especially believers who do not subscribe to such madness). It has spread since the Afghan war of the 1980s to date and permutated into new and even more virulent forms. This is the revenge of history on all those (the west and Pakistan leading the list) who employed religious fanatical proxies in order to defeat communism. That aim of the Cold War was achieved, but the world at large continues to pay the cost of that unthinking of consequences strategy. The ideas of the extremist ideologues have permeated far too many minds in the Muslim world and even infiltrated into the minds of young people (immigrant origin as well as native) in the west and the rest of the world. This produces a sense of outraged righteousness, exaggerated entitlement (the 'ticket to heaven' syndrome) and blinkers regarding Islam's message of peace, responsibility, tolerance and respect for life. Sadly, the history of conquest, exploitation and oppression of Muslim and other third world countries by western colonialism and imperialism has left deep resentments in the hearts of the victims of this process. Sad because after it seemed the socialist challenge to this rapaciousness had failed to deliver, young minds increasingly have been attracted to the false dawn of Islamist radicalism, a cul de sac in terms of human history, if ever there was one.

Business Recorder editorial June 11, 2016

'Honour' killings rash Recent days have seen a virtual rash of so-called 'honour' killings of women, usually revolving around choice of life partner. In Lahore the other day, the most recent example of this social affliction was witnessed in the shooting dead by her father of a young woman, her husband, and a neighbour considered instrumental in her decision to marry a man of her choice about a year ago. In a village near Murree earlier, a 19-year-old teacher was tortured and burnt alive for refusing to marry the son of the owner of the school where she taught. Teenaged Zeenat Rafiq was set on fire in a lower income neighbourhood of Lahore by her mother and brother for marrying a man of her choice. These three incidents occurred within the space of three weeks. Similar cases have been reported from all over the country over the past few months. Why has this phenomenon, not unknown in the past, suddenly acquired such intensity? It is of course not something that is unknown in our society, based on mistaken notions of 'honour', faith, tribal code, tradition and culture. Its essence of course lies in structures of patriarchy. The onward march of time and social development, combined with a growing consciousness regarding women's rights, has encouraged women to assert their place under the sun. This provokes perhaps redoubled fury at the 'disobedient'. Neither our faith nor modern values in harmony with the twenty first century justify such attitudes, let alone taking the law into one's own hands and resorting to cruel, bloody murder. Islam sees marriage as a contract between two consenting adults. While the wishes of parents and family deserve consideration, they cannot override the preferences and choices of young adult women. Retrograde ideas and attitudes inform seeing such choices as besmirching family 'honour' and therefore justifying putting the 'errant' women to death. Two aspects feed into such practices. One, retrogressive religious parties and forces that reinforce medieval notions of family honour and women's place (or lack of it) in society. Recently, the Council of Islamic Ideology (CII) delivered its latest enlightenment in the shape of instructions on the correct method of beating one's wife ("lightly"). The CII, in the opinion of some Senators and wide swathes of enlightened opinion, has long passed its sell-by date. Calls for its abolition are mounting in direct proportion to the antediluvian nature of its pronouncements. Two, the law as it stands encourages such killings because the loophole regarding the victim's family forgiving the perpetrator or accepting blood money provides impunity to those guilty of such crimes. Both aspects can be illustrated and understood by reference to the fate of the Anti-Honour Killings Bill, 2014 (formally the Criminal Laws Amendment Bill), tabled by former PPP Senator Sughra Imam in March 2015. The Bill sought to criminalise so-called honour killings and amend the provisions that all too often allow the perpetrators of such crimes to walk free after being 'forgiven' or paying blood money. Either or both of these outcomes come relatively easy to the rich and powerful. The irony is that the Bill was unanimously passed by the Senate, including support from such religious parties as the JUI-F. Unfortunately it lapsed before the National Assembly could get around to passing it. In March 2016, the same JUI-F rejected the Bill, arguing for clauses allowing aggrieved parties to forgive the perpetrators be retained. It now remains for the government to take the Bill out of the cold storage to which it was consigned thanks to the religious parties, and push it through a joint session of parliament. Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif of late had donned the mantle of women's rights champion. The murders referred to above are a stark reminder that delay is fatal. Our political leadership/s must pluck up courage, gird up their loins, shed their fear of the retrogressive lobby, and strike a blow for our besieged sisters and daughters to allow Pakistani society to move forward out of the dark night we are witnessing and into a bright new day where no daughter of the nation will ever again be burnt for her life choices and the murderers get away lightly or even scot-free.

Business Recorder editorial - June 10, 2016, published June 12, 2016

Khwaja Asif's antics Defence Minister Khwaja Asif has by now acquired an unenviable reputation for lapsing into unparliamentary language at the drop of a hat. He exhibited the same penchant the other day when, while addressing the National Assembly (NA), he turned on his hecklers from the opposition benches and, pinpointing PTI MNA Shireen Mazari, directed remarks at her that would be considered offensive by anyone, but seemed all the more inappropriate for being about a woman fellow parliamentarian. The furore that naturally followed could have been handled better, but the guardian of the house, Speaker Ayaz Sadiq, merely expunged the offending remarks while failing to address the demand of the opposition benches for an apology to Ms Mazari. Khwaja Asif it seems was prevailed upon by his treasury colleagues the next day to offer an apology on the floor of the house but refused to include Ms Mazari's name in it on the spurious argument that since he had not named anyone in his diatribe at his hecklers, he did not feel the need to include Ms Mazari's name in the apology. This of course failed to satisfy Ms Mazari and her opposition colleagues, who staged a walkout on the issue. Khwaja Asif's antics have created an unnecessary crisis in the NA. What perhaps the volatile Defence Minister has failed to imbibe despite all the time he has spent in parliament is that heckling is very much part of the tradition of any parliament. That makes the singling out and targeting of a woman parliamentarian reprehensible on the touchstone of parliamentary traditions and conventions as well as betraying a level of sexism all too common in our society. Two failures attended the episode. First and foremost, the Speaker failed to uphold the respect and dignity of the house by his failure to uphold the respect and dignity of a member, and that too a woman. Ayaz Sadiq may be from the PML-N, but his role as the guardian of the house has to be above partisan party considerations. Had he taken a firmer line with the errant minister on the day of the incident, instead of trying to find excuses for him (provocation, etc), things may not have come to such a pass. The second failure was of the Women's Parliamentary Caucus (WPC), set up to uphold the interests of women members across the party divide. Unfortunately, at the first test, the WPC, or rather its secretary general, Shaista Malik of the PML-N, failed to rise above loyalty to party and according to Shireen Mazari, failed to come to her aid and succour on the grounds that Khwaja Asif had submitted an apology in writing to the Speaker (the same generalised apology that failed to defuse the situation). As a result of this fiasco, the WPC faces a split on treasury-opposition lines and the Speaker's reputation and credibility has suffered a blow. The issue of the mistreatment, and worse, of women in our society is fast assuming critical proportions. Numerous incidents in recent days of women being burnt to death for choosing their own life partners freely (inappropriately dubbed 'honour' killings) have raised alarm in society generally and even found an echo in the Senate. Senators blamed the Council of Islamic Ideology's (CII's) pronouncements from time to time on women, including the recent 'light beating' pearl of wisdom, as responsible for creating a climate of misogyny and sexism in our society that was impacting women's safety and lives. The Senators wanted the CII abolished. In parliament in the past, Sheikh Rashid was well known for his foul mouthed barbs, which did not even spare late Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto as a woman, and for which he had to spend a stint in prison. Khwaja Asif seems determined to carry on from where an eventually relatively chastened Sheikh Rashid left off. Misogyny and sexism have no place in society today. Nor in parliament. What a shame one even has to remind of the verity of these statements.

Business Recorder editorial June 8, 2016

Looming isolation The top civil and military leadership met at GHQ in the absence of Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif to review Afghan policy and challenges to the China Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC). Observers considered it an "extraordinary" meeting convened by COAS General Raheel Sharif. Although media reports said the meeting was prompted by specific concerns, it is not clear what these were. Nor did any details emerge after the conclave, except for a ritual bland statement by ISPR reiterating that hostile foreign intelligence agencies (meaning RAW and the Afghan NDS) and their "facilitators" would not be allowed to foment trouble, "core national interests" would be protected, and any negative outside influence would be countered. Make of that what you will. Significantly, neither National Security Advisor General (retd) Nasir Janjua nor Interior Minister Chaudhry Nisar attended, leading to speculation that the meeting was focused on matters other than India and internal security. The meeting did reaffirm Pakistan's commitment to Afghan peace but emphasised border management to control cross-border movement, condemned the May 21 drone strike that took out Taliban leader Mullah Mansour as a clear violation of Pakistan's sovereignty and which affected Pakistan-US mutual trust and undermined the peace process. Nevertheless, the meeting reiterated that Pakistan remains committed to the Quadrilateral process. Chabahar port and the trilateral transit agreement amongst Iran, India and Afghanistan was perceived by the meeting as a security threat. There is little doubt that India has pushed this development to bypass Pakistan and replace its influence in these countries with New Delhi's. In fact Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi has been on a diplomatic offensive lately, visiting and displaying a nifty ability to wean Pakistan's friends like Afghanistan, Iran, UAE, Saudi Arabia and Qatar out of Islamabad's orbit. The crowning achievement of Mr Modi's diplomatic offensive is the growing ties between India and the US. The Indian prime minister is in Washington currently, where he has succeeded in obtaining US President Barack Obama's support for India's efforts to join the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG). Mr Modi, once denied a US visa for his role in the Gujarat anti-Muslim riots in 2002 when he was chief minister, has achieved a remarkable turnaround in his personal acceptance and his country's success in persuading Washington to continue in the vein of the Bush Administration's civil nuclear agreement with India. The icing on this cake was the address by Modi to a joint session of the US Congress on June 8, where he received repeated standing ovations. At the same time, it was revealed that the Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR) has agreed to admit India after the deadline for the 34 country members' objections expired on June 6. Admission allows India to purchase high-end missile technology and state of-the-art drones like the Predator. It also helps India's case for joining the NSG as a 'responsible' nuclear state. Modi has invested heavily in visiting and lobbying countries like Italy, Mexico and Switzerland that had reservations regarding letting India join the NSG. Italy and Switzerland have withdrawn their objections and Mexico may well follow suit. Pakistan's hopes of stopping this development rest on China's support on the basis of weighing the issue in non-discriminatory scales (i.e. either both Pakistan and India are admitted, or neither). The paralysis of Pakistan's foreign policy in sharp contrast to India's activism prompted the Senate on June 7 to demand countering India's "aggressive foreign policy". Fine words, but little to back it up in practice. While Pakistan's relationship with the US comes under strain post-withdrawal and its friends are whisked away one by one from under Islamabad's nose, India has further fuelled the arms race by recently testing a supersonic interceptor missile. Poised as it is to enter the MTCR and possibly the NSG (if China changes its mind), India has ambitious plans to acquire a submarine-based second strike nuclear capability, a prospect that has set alarm bells ringing in Islamabad, which can so far only come up with the idea of moving a resolution (non-binding, mind) in the UN General Assembly to resist India's plans to nuclearise the Indian Ocean. The challenges for our foreign policy and our feeble response are truly cause for serious concern.

Business Recorder editorial June 7, 2016

Lingering conundrum The 32nd anniversary of the massacre of militant Sikh leader Jarnail Singh Bindranwale and thousands of his supporters in the Sikh holiest of holies Golden Temple in Amritsar on June 6, 1984 evoked a demand by thousands of marching British Sikhs in London for a UN-led probe into the bloody event that still rankles in the Sikh consciousness even after all these years. The events of that fateful day in 1984 had a background of partisan political manoeuvring and a fallout that went far and deep. Then prime minister Indira Gandhi was persuaded to weaken the ruling Akali Dal mainstream Sikh party in Indian Punjab by surreptitiously supporting a militant Sikh tendency under the leadership of Bindranwale. But as many such manipulators have found (very often to their cost), 'proxies' tend to be a double-edged weapon. All too soon, Bindranwale slipped the leash and started acting with autonomy and even impunity, based on the 'muscle' (and weapons) his followers sported. The culmination of this process was the takeover of the Golden Temple by Bindranwale and company. After a prolonged standoff between the police and security forces surrounding the Golden Temple complex and Bindranwale's supporters inside, Indira Gandhi gave the order to the army for an all-out assault. In the bloody encounter that followed, and given the overwhelming force used against the rebels, Bindranwale and thousands perished, thousands more Sikh youths were put on suspect lists, arrested, imprisoned, tortured and killed for supporting an independent Sikh state dubbed Khalistan. According to the protestors in London, many thousands of Sikh youths were also placed on black lists circulated to foreign governments, particularly the UK. What followed the assault on the Golden Temple and the persecution of Sikhs was even worse. Mrs Gandhi's Sikh bodyguards gunned her down, sparking retaliation by incensed Congress crowds on any Sikh they could lay their hands on. The gathering bitterness between the Sikh community and the Indian state and society thus acquired the characteristics of a deep, unhealed wound that festers beneath the surface to this day. Matters have not been helped by the fact that no justice or redress has been made available as balm for the Sikhs' scars. The marchers in London probably gave voice to the silent majority of Sikhs back home in India who may have retreated into a sullen and resentful quietitude. Such catastrophic bloody events cannot just be wished away, no matter how much water has flowed down the rivers of Indian Punjab since. India owes it to its aggrieved Sikh community as much as its widely admired democratic and secular ethos to close this painful chapter through adequately addressing the Sikhs' sense of being wronged. We in Pakistan should in the same spirit revisit some of the gorier events of our own chequered history, first among them the genocide in then East Pakistan in 1971 and the continuing series of military crackdowns in Balochistan. States, especially post-colonial ones, cannot be built, consolidated and prosper if the use of force against dissenting communities is the automatic, knee jerk response. Certainly in the case of the Sikhs in India, our estranged Bengali brothers in Bangladesh and our 'permanent' rebellions amongst the Baloch, there is room for learning the correct lessons from these tumultuous events and arriving at a wiser course for dealing with dissidence and even its militant manifestations. Sometimes wisdom lies more in the use of persuasion rather than overwhelming force (which states of course command). The latter provides the illusion of final victory but obscures the deep fissures it leaves at the heart of states and societies unable to chart a different path of reconciliation, dialogue and peaceful resolution of conflict.

Business Recorder column June 6, 2016 - Looking back at the Cultural Revolution

Looking back at the Cultural Revolution Rashed Rahman The 50th anniversary of the launching of the Cultural Revolution by Mao Tse Tung on May 16, 1966 passed this year unmarked in China. The media was silent and there was hardly any remembrance or commemoration except personal accounts of suffering during those turbulent years. The post-Mao order since his death in 1976 (which also marked the effective end of the Cultural Revolution) has been either silent or critically dismissive of an event the current received wisdom in China considers a catastrophe. The generation that came of age in the 1960s in China and the rest of the world however, would probably deliver an array of divergent opinions on a historic phenomenon that shook the Chinese communist system and young people worldwide to the roots. So what was this phenomenon called the Cultural Revolution? First, the international and internal Chinese context. The People's Republic of China had not been recognised by the US-led western camp and those countries in the rest of the world that were under western control or influence. The Cold War was at its height. The relative isolation of China internationally was only breached by the socialist camp and some third world countries, notable amongst them Pakistan. Washington had, since the revolution came to power after a protracted armed struggle starting in 1927, set up a cordon sanitaire around China, consisting of its Cold War allies in Asia on and around the periphery of China. Added to this set of hostile powers was the ideological dispute China had with its erstwhile socialist ally the Soviet Union, which had its origins in Kruschev's denunciation of Stalin in a secret speech to the Soviet politburo in 1956 and which had led to a split in the international communist movement between pro-Moscow and pro-Beijing parties by 1963. Internally, Mao, hitherto the undisputed leader and guiding light of the successful Chinese revolution, had been all but sidelined by a Rightist trend in the Chinese Communist Party leadership in the wake of the failed Great Leap Forward initiated by Mao in the late 1950s. This initiative was aimed at pushing China pell mell into modernising its economy in the face of the hostile and threatening western alliance. However, carried away by overzealousness and afflicted by poor planning, the Great Leap Forward fizzled out or was abandoned after great disruption to the economy and even food shortages. Taking advantage of the failure of Mao's brilliant albeit flawed concept, the Rightist trend in the Communist Party, led by President Liu Shao Chi, marginalised Mao. The Party's policy then seemed to be converging with that of the Soviet Union, with its emphasis on investment in heavy industry and a conservative approach to social change. This incrementally alarmed Mao, who had seen the degeneration of the Soviet Union under Kruschev into a bureaucratic ossification that led almost inevitably to the death of the Soviet revolution. This was described by Mao as revisionism (the revision of the revolutionary Marxist doctrine in the direction of reformism and the early shoots of a restoration of capitalism). Lenin had warned soon after the Russian revolution that the roots of capitalism could not be so easily plucked from the soil of a socialist society emerging from the womb of capitalism. This despite the fact that the commanding heights of the Soviet economy had been nationalised. The reason, Lenin argued, was because the existence of small-scale, petit bourgeois production, which could not be abolished in one fell swoop without great economic disruption, leads spontaneously and inevitably to the growth of a capitalist sector. Mao feared that China under Liu Shao Chi would inevitably degenerate into a capitalist society. Failing to persuade the highest echelons of the Party on this score, Mao reached out for a very different solution to the immediate trend as well as sought a model that would prevent the tendency of revolutions to degenerate over time and be transformed at some point in that evolution into their dialectical opposite. To achieve this aim, Mao considered the nurturing of new generations of revolutionaries critical to the maintenance and forward march of the revolution. He thus turned to the youth with the stirring slogan: "It is right to rebel." This radical idea not only appealed to the youth in China fired by revolutionary zeal, it also fed into the rebellious youth all over the world, alienated as they were by the 1960s youth challenge to received wisdom and social values. The 1960s generation was seething with revolt against the capitalist system and its values bequeathed by their elders. This rebellion took many diverse forms, from culture to lifestyle to personal and social values and norms. But its most pointed manifestation, which seemed to subsume all the diverse forms of rebellion, was the anti-Vietnam War movement. In China, Mao also formulated a startling slogan to target the deviationist trend in the Chinese Communist leadership. He said: "Bombard the headquarters" (meaning the headquarters inside the Party leadership opening the door to the threat of a capitalist restoration). Unleashed in their millions, the youthful Red Guards targeted the four 'olds': customs, habits, culture and thinking (all rooted in China's feudal past). In this campaign, party leaders, cadres, intellectuals and other sections believed to be trapped in or continuing adherence to the old ways and customs bequeathed by pre-revolutionary society were criticised, pilloried and subjected to public humiliation. The overzealous Red Guards also attacked cultural icons, museums and other symbols of the past. Never in history had such a radical transformation of a society been attempted virtually overnight. That ambition turned out also to be the gravedigger of the Cultural Revolution. The overzealousness of the Red Guards came later to be described by Mao as a Left (extremist) deviation. It was led by Lin Piao, Mao's designated successor, as well as what came to be called the Gang of Four, amongst whom were Mao's wife, Chiang Ching. The increasingly intolerant, denunciatory and violent trajectory of the Cultural Revolution as it unfolded finally compelled Mao to call in the People's Liberation Army to restore order and quell the increasingly violent clashes between rival factions inside the Party and in wider society. That to a considerable extent spelt the end of the extreme radical attempt to lop off history and transform deep rooted historically received social reality virtually overnight. The extreme radicals, led by Lin Piao, were incensed at this turn and in 1971, it was reported that Lin Piao and his co-conspirators attempting a failed coup against Mao, had been killed in a mysterious plane crash while attempting to flee to the Soviet Union. Although the Cultural Revolution sputtered on till Mao's death in 1976, the Lin Piao episode spelt for all intents and purposes the end of the extremely radical experiment of the Cultural Revolution. Apart from the bitter memories of its victims, which have found incremental expression since then, what legacy, practically and in the realm of ideas, did the Cultural Revolution bequeath? Practically, Mao's ideas and thrust did not survive him, and as soon as his ideological nemesis Deng Xiao Peng was rehabilitated and brought back to power, the floodgates were thrown open to capitalism, just as Mao had feared, while retaining the Communist Party's hold on power. This 'neither fish nor fowl' hybrid system is what has emerged from the ashes of the Cultural Revolution. It rests on the implied social contract between the Party and the people that as long as the latter are ensured material comfort and increasing income and wealth, the Party's monopoly on power will continue undisturbed. Thus we have the spectacle of a capitalist economy with lingering traces here and there of the old collective order being presided over and encouraged by a Communist Party that justifies it by reference to considering the pursuit of wealth and riches as 'glorious'. The contradictions inherent in this hybrid arrangement burst forth from time to time in the form of taking the ultimate step to bring the political system in line with the economic base by turning China into a bourgeois democracy. This, however, remains an unresolved contradiction at the heart of the matter. Conceptually, while the idea that all revolutions require new generations of revolutionaries to prevent them degenerating over time and eventually succumbing to the inertia and spontaneous regeneration of the overthrown system (capitalism) has weight, the means to this end remain to be discovered. And that may well constitute the last word on the Cultural Revolution.

Business Recorder column June 7, 2016 - Looking back at the Cultural Revolution

Looking back at the Cultural Revolution Rashed Rahman The 50th anniversary of the launching of the Cultural Revolution by Mao Tse Tung on May 16, 1966 passed this year unmarked in China. The media was silent and there was hardly any remembrance or commemoration except personal accounts of suffering during those turbulent years. The post-Mao order since his death in 1976 (which also marked the effective end of the Cultural Revolution) has been either silent or critically dismissive of an event the current received wisdom in China considers a catastrophe. The generation that came of age in the 1960s in China and the rest of the world however, would probably deliver an array of divergent opinions on a historic phenomenon that shook the Chinese communist system and young people worldwide to the roots. So what was this phenomenon called the Cultural Revolution? First, the international and internal Chinese context. The People's Republic of China had not been recognised by the US-led western camp and those countries in the rest of the world that were under western control or influence. The Cold War was at its height. The relative isolation of China internationally was only breached by the socialist camp and some third world countries, notable amongst them Pakistan. Washington had, since the revolution came to power after a protracted armed struggle starting in 1927, set up a cordon sanitairye around China, consisting of its Cold War allies in Asia on and around the periphery of China. Added to this set of hostile powers was the ideological despite China had with its erstwhile socialist ally the Soviet Union, which had its origins in Kruschev's denunciation of Stalin in a secret speech to the Soviet politburo in 1956 and which had led to a split in the international communist movement between pro-Moscow and pro-Beijing parties by 1963. Internally, Mao, hitherto the undisputed leader and guiding light of the successful Chinese revolution, had been all but sidelined by a Rightist trend in the Chinese Communist Party leadership in the wake of the failed Great Leap Forward initiated by Mao in the late 1950s. This initiative was aimed at pushing China pell mell into modernising its economy in the face of the hostile and threatening western alliance. However, carried away by overzealousness and afflicted by poor planning, the Great Leap Forward fizzled out or was abandoned after great disruption to the economy and even food shortages. Taking advantage of the failure of Mao's brilliant albeit flawed concept, the Rightist trend in the Communist Party, led by President Liu Shao Chi, marginalised Mao. The Party's policy then seemed to be converging with that of the Soviet Union, with its emphasis on investment in heavy industry and a conservative approach to social change. This incrementally alarmed Mao, who had seen the degeneration of the Soviet Union under Kruschev into a bureaucratic ossification that led almost inevitably to the death of the Soviet revolution. This was described by Mao as revisionism (the revision of the revolutionary Marxist doctrine in the direction of reformism and the early shoots of a restoration of capitalism). Lenin had warned soon after the Russian revolution that the roots of capitalism could not be so easily plucked from the soil of a socialist society emerging from the womb of capitalism. This despite the fact that the commanding heights of the Soviet economy had been nationalised. The reason, Lenin argued, was because the existence of small-scale, petit bourgeois production, which could not be abolished in one fell swoop without great economic disruption, leads spontaneously and inevitably to the growth of a capitalist sector. Mao feared that China under Liu Shao Chi would inevitably degenerate into a capitalist society. Failing to persuade the highest echelons of the Party on this score, Mao reached out for a very different solution to the immediate trend as well as sought a model that would prevent the tendency of revolutions to degenerate over time and be transformed at some point in that evolution into their dialectical opposite. To achieve this aim, Mao considered the nurturing of new generations of revolutionaries critical to the maintenance and forward march of the revolution. He thus turned to the youth with the stirring slogan: "It is right to rebel." This radical idea not only appealed to the youth in China fired by revolutionary zeal, it also fed into the rebellious youth all over the world, alienated as they were by the 1960s youth challenge to received wisdom and social values. The 1960s generation was seething with revolt against the capitalist system and its values bequeathed by their elders. This rebellion took many diverse forms, from culture to lifestyle to personal and social values and norms. But its most pointed manifestation, which seemed to subsume all the diverse forms of rebellion, was the anti-Vietnam War movement. In China, Mao also formulated a startling slogan to target the deviationist trend in the Chinese Communist leadership. He said: "Bombard the headquarters" (meaning the headquarters inside the Party leadership opening the door to the threat of a capitalist restoration). Unleashed in their millions, the youthful Red Guards targeted the four 'olds': customs, habits, culture and thinking (all rooted in China's feudal past). In this campaign, party leaders, cadres, intellectuals and other sections believed to be trapped in or continuing adherence to the old ways and customs bequeathed by pre-revolutionary society were criticised, pilloried and subjected to public humiliation. The overzealous Red Guards also attacked cultural icons, museums and other symbols of the past. Never in history had such a radical transformation of a society been attempted virtually overnight. That ambition turned out also to be the gravedigger of the Cultural Revolution. The overzealousness of the Red Guards came later to be described by Mao as a Left (extremist) deviation. It was led by Lin Piao, Mao's designated successor, as well as what came to be called the Gang of Four, amongst whom were Mao's wife, Chiang Ching. The increasingly intolerant, denunciatory and violent trajectory of the Cultural Revolution as it unfolded finally compelled Mao to call in the People's Liberation Army to restore order and quell the increasingly violent clashes between rival factions inside the Party and in wider society. That to a considerable extent spelt the end of the extreme radical attempt to lop off history and transform deep rooted historically received social reality virtually overnight. The extreme radicals, led by Lin Piao, were incensed at this turn and in 1971, it was reported that Lin Piao and his co-conspirators attempting a failed coup against Mao, had been killed in a mysterious plane crash while attempting to flee to the Soviet Union. Although the Cultural Revolution sputtered on till Mao's death in 1976, the Lin Piao episode spelt for all intents and purposes the end of the extremely radical experiment of the Cultural Revolution. Apart from the bitter memories of its victims, which have found incremental expression since then, what legacy, practically and in the realm of ideas, did the Cultural Revolution bequeath? Practically, Mao's ideas and thrust did not survive him, and as soon as his ideological nemesis Deng Xiao Peng was rehabilitated and brought back to power, the floodgates were thrown open to capitalism, just as Mao had feared, while retaining the Communist Party's hold on power. This 'neither fish nor fowl' hybrid system is what has emerged from the ashes of the Cultural Revolution. It rests on the implied social contract between the Party and the people that as long as the latter are ensured material comfort and increasing income and wealth, the Party's monopoly on power will continue undisturbed. Thus we have the spectacle of a capitalist economy with lingering traces here and there of the old collective order being presided over and encouraged by a Communist Party that justifies it by reference to considering the pursuit of wealth and riches as 'glorious'. The contradictions inherent in this hybrid arrangement burst forth from time to time in the form of taking the ultimate step to bring the political system in line with the economic base by turning China into a bourgeois democracy. This, however, remains an unresolved contradiction at the heart of the matter. Conceptually, while the idea that all revolutions require new generations of revolutionaries to prevent them degenerating over time and eventually succumbing to the inertia and spontaneous regeneration of the overthrown system (capitalism) has weight, the means to this end remain to be discovered. And that may well constitute the last word on the Cultural Revolution. rashed.rahman1@gmail.com

Looking back at the Cultural Revolution Rashed Rahman The 50th anniversary of the launching of the Cultural Revolution by Mao Tse Tung on May 16, 1966 passed this year unmarked in China. The media was silent and there was hardly any remembrance or commemoration except personal accounts of suffering during those turbulent years. The post-Mao order since his death in 1976 (which also marked the effective end of the Cultural Revolution) has been either silent or critically dismissive of an event the current received wisdom in China considers a catastrophe. The generation that came of age in the 1960s in China and the rest of the world however, would probably deliver an array of divergent opinions on a historic phenomenon that shook the Chinese communist system and young people worldwide to the roots. So what was this phenomenon called the Cultural Revolution? First, the international and internal Chinese context. The People's Republic of China had not been recognised by the US-led western camp and those countries in the rest of the world that were under western control or influence. The Cold War was at its height. The relative isolation of China internationally was only breached by the socialist camp and some third world countries, notable amongst them Pakistan. Washington had, since the revolution came to power after a protracted armed struggle starting in 1927, set up a cordon sanitairye around China, consisting of its Cold War allies in Asia on and around the periphery of China. Added to this set of hostile powers was the ideological despite China had with its erstwhile socialist ally the Soviet Union, which had its origins in Kruschev's denunciation of Stalin in a secret speech to the Soviet politburo in 1956 and which had led to a split in the international communist movement between pro-Moscow and pro-Beijing parties by 1963. Internally, Mao, hitherto the undisputed leader and guiding light of the successful Chinese revolution, had been all but sidelined by a Rightist trend in the Chinese Communist Party leadership in the wake of the failed Great Leap Forward initiated by Mao in the late 1950s. This initiative was aimed at pushing China pell mell into modernising its economy in the face of the hostile and threatening western alliance. However, carried away by overzealousness and afflicted by poor planning, the Great Leap Forward fizzled out or was abandoned after great disruption to the economy and even food shortages. Taking advantage of the failure of Mao's brilliant albeit flawed concept, the Rightist trend in the Communist Party, led by President Liu Shao Chi, marginalised Mao. The Party's policy then seemed to be converging with that of the Soviet Union, with its emphasis on investment in heavy industry and a conservative approach to social change. This incrementally alarmed Mao, who had seen the degeneration of the Soviet Union under Kruschev into a bureaucratic ossification that led almost inevitably to the death of the Soviet revolution. This was described by Mao as revisionism (the revision of the revolutionary Marxist doctrine in the direction of reformism and the early shoots of a restoration of capitalism). Lenin had warned soon after the Russian revolution that the roots of capitalism could not be so easily plucked from the soil of a socialist society emerging from the womb of capitalism. This despite the fact that the commanding heights of the Soviet economy had been nationalised. The reason, Lenin argued, was because the existence of small-scale, petit bourgeois production, which could not be abolished in one fell swoop without great economic disruption, leads spontaneously and inevitably to the growth of a capitalist sector. Mao feared that China under Liu Shao Chi would inevitably degenerate into a capitalist society. Failing to persuade the highest echelons of the Party on this score, Mao reached out for a very different solution to the immediate trend as well as sought a model that would prevent the tendency of revolutions to degenerate over time and be transformed at some point in that evolution into their dialectical opposite. To achieve this aim, Mao considered the nurturing of new generations of revolutionaries critical to the maintenance and forward march of the revolution. He thus turned to the youth with the stirring slogan: "It is right to rebel." This radical idea not only appealed to the youth in China fired by revolutionary zeal, it also fed into the rebellious youth all over the world, alienated as they were by the 1960s youth challenge to received wisdom and social values. The 1960s generation was seething with revolt against the capitalist system and its values bequeathed by their elders. This rebellion took many diverse forms, from culture to lifestyle to personal and social values and norms. But its most pointed manifestation, which seemed to subsume all the diverse forms of rebellion, was the anti-Vietnam War movement. In China, Mao also formulated a startling slogan to target the deviationist trend in the Chinese Communist leadership. He said: "Bombard the headquarters" (meaning the headquarters inside the Party leadership opening the door to the threat of a capitalist restoration). Unleashed in their millions, the youthful Red Guards targeted the four 'olds': customs, habits, culture and thinking (all rooted in China's feudal past). In this campaign, party leaders, cadres, intellectuals and other sections believed to be trapped in or continuing adherence to the old ways and customs bequeathed by pre-revolutionary society were criticised, pilloried and subjected to public humiliation. The overzealous Red Guards also attacked cultural icons, museums and other symbols of the past. Never in history had such a radical transformation of a society been attempted virtually overnight. That ambition turned out also to be the gravedigger of the Cultural Revolution. The overzealousness of the Red Guards came later to be described by Mao as a Left (extremist) deviation. It was led by Lin Piao, Mao's designated successor, as well as what came to be called the Gang of Four, amongst whom were Mao's wife, Chiang Ching. The increasingly intolerant, denunciatory and violent trajectory of the Cultural Revolution as it unfolded finally compelled Mao to call in the People's Liberation Army to restore order and quell the increasingly violent clashes between rival factions inside the Party and in wider society. That to a considerable extent spelt the end of the extreme radical attempt to lop off history and transform deep rooted historically received social reality virtually overnight. The extreme radicals, led by Lin Piao, were incensed at this turn and in 1971, it was reported that Lin Piao and his co-conspirators attempting a failed coup against Mao, had been killed in a mysterious plane crash while attempting to flee to the Soviet Union. Although the Cultural Revolution sputtered on till Mao's death in 1976, the Lin Piao episode spelt for all intents and purposes the end of the extremely radical experiment of the Cultural Revolution. Apart from the bitter memories of its victims, which have found incremental expression since then, what legacy, practically and in the realm of ideas, did the Cultural Revolution bequeath? Practically, Mao's ideas and thrust did not survive him, and as soon as his ideological nemesis Deng Xiao Peng was rehabilitated and brought back to power, the floodgates were thrown open to capitalism, just as Mao had feared, while retaining the Communist Party's hold on power. This 'neither fish nor fowl' hybrid system is what has emerged from the ashes of the Cultural Revolution. It rests on the implied social contract between the Party and the people that as long as the latter are ensured material comfort and increasing income and wealth, the Party's monopoly on power will continue undisturbed. Thus we have the spectacle of a capitalist economy with lingering traces here and there of the old collective order being presided over and encouraged by a Communist Party that justifies it by reference to considering the pursuit of wealth and riches as 'glorious'. The contradictions inherent in this hybrid arrangement burst forth from time to time in the form of taking the ultimate step to bring the political system in line with the economic base by turning China into a bourgeois democracy. This, however, remains an unresolved contradiction at the heart of the matter. Conceptually, while the idea that all revolutions require new generations of revolutionaries to prevent them degenerating over time and eventually succumbing to the inertia and spontaneous regeneration of the overthrown system (capitalism) has weight, the means to this end remain to be discovered. And that may well constitute the last word on the Cultural Revolution.

Looking back at the Cultural Revolution Rashed Rahman The 50th anniversary of the launching of the Cultural Revolution by Mao Tse Tung on May 16, 1966 passed this year unmarked in China. The media was silent and there was hardly any remembrance or commemoration except personal accounts of suffering during those turbulent years. The post-Mao order since his death in 1976 (which also marked the effective end of the Cultural Revolution) has been either silent or critically dismissive of an event the current received wisdom in China considers a catastrophe. The generation that came of age in the 1960s in China and the rest of the world however, would probably deliver an array of divergent opinions on a historic phenomenon that shook the Chinese communist system and young people worldwide to the roots. So what was this phenomenon called the Cultural Revolution? First, the international and internal Chinese context. The People's Republic of China had not been recognised by the US-led western camp and those countries in the rest of the world that were under western control or influence. The Cold War was at its height. The relative isolation of China internationally was only breached by the socialist camp and some third world countries, notable amongst them Pakistan. Washington had, since the revolution came to power after a protracted armed struggle starting in 1927, set up a cordon sanitairye around China, consisting of its Cold War allies in Asia on and around the periphery of China. Added to this set of hostile powers was the ideological despite China had with its erstwhile socialist ally the Soviet Union, which had its origins in Kruschev's denunciation of Stalin in a secret speech to the Soviet politburo in 1956 and which had led to a split in the international communist movement between pro-Moscow and pro-Beijing parties by 1963. Internally, Mao, hitherto the undisputed leader and guiding light of the successful Chinese revolution, had been all but sidelined by a Rightist trend in the Chinese Communist Party leadership in the wake of the failed Great Leap Forward initiated by Mao in the late 1950s. This initiative was aimed at pushing China pell mell into modernising its economy in the face of the hostile and threatening western alliance. However, carried away by overzealousness and afflicted by poor planning, the Great Leap Forward fizzled out or was abandoned after great disruption to the economy and even food shortages. Taking advantage of the failure of Mao's brilliant albeit flawed concept, the Rightist trend in the Communist Party, led by President Liu Shao Chi, marginalised Mao. The Party's policy then seemed to be converging with that of the Soviet Union, with its emphasis on investment in heavy industry and a conservative approach to social change. This incrementally alarmed Mao, who had seen the degeneration of the Soviet Union under Kruschev into a bureaucratic ossification that led almost inevitably to the death of the Soviet revolution. This was described by Mao as revisionism (the revision of the revolutionary Marxist doctrine in the direction of reformism and the early shoots of a restoration of capitalism). Lenin had warned soon after the Russian revolution that the roots of capitalism could not be so easily plucked from the soil of a socialist society emerging from the womb of capitalism. This despite the fact that the commanding heights of the Soviet economy had been nationalised. The reason, Lenin argued, was because the existence of small-scale, petit bourgeois production, which could not be abolished in one fell swoop without great economic disruption, leads spontaneously and inevitably to the growth of a capitalist sector. Mao feared that China under Liu Shao Chi would inevitably degenerate into a capitalist society. Failing to persuade the highest echelons of the Party on this score, Mao reached out for a very different solution to the immediate trend as well as sought a model that would prevent the tendency of revolutions to degenerate over time and be transformed at some point in that evolution into their dialectical opposite. To achieve this aim, Mao considered the nurturing of new generations of revolutionaries critical to the maintenance and forward march of the revolution. He thus turned to the youth with the stirring slogan: "It is right to rebel." This radical idea not only appealed to the youth in China fired by revolutionary zeal, it also fed into the rebellious youth all over the world, alienated as they were by the 1960s youth challenge to received wisdom and social values. The 1960s generation was seething with revolt against the capitalist system and its values bequeathed by their elders. This rebellion took many diverse forms, from culture to lifestyle to personal and social values and norms. But its most pointed manifestation, which seemed to subsume all the diverse forms of rebellion, was the anti-Vietnam War movement. In China, Mao also formulated a startling slogan to target the deviationist trend in the Chinese Communist leadership. He said: "Bombard the headquarters" (meaning the headquarters inside the Party leadership opening the door to the threat of a capitalist restoration). Unleashed in their millions, the youthful Red Guards targeted the four 'olds': customs, habits, culture and thinking (all rooted in China's feudal past). In this campaign, party leaders, cadres, intellectuals and other sections believed to be trapped in or continuing adherence to the old ways and customs bequeathed by pre-revolutionary society were criticised, pilloried and subjected to public humiliation. The overzealous Red Guards also attacked cultural icons, museums and other symbols of the past. Never in history had such a radical transformation of a society been attempted virtually overnight. That ambition turned out also to be the gravedigger of the Cultural Revolution. The overzealousness of the Red Guards came later to be described by Mao as a Left (extremist) deviation. It was led by Lin Piao, Mao's designated successor, as well as what came to be called the Gang of Four, amongst whom were Mao's wife, Chiang Ching. The increasingly intolerant, denunciatory and violent trajectory of the Cultural Revolution as it unfolded finally compelled Mao to call in the People's Liberation Army to restore order and quell the increasingly violent clashes between rival factions inside the Party and in wider society. That to a considerable extent spelt the end of the extreme radical attempt to lop off history and transform deep rooted historically received social reality virtually overnight. The extreme radicals, led by Lin Piao, were incensed at this turn and in 1971, it was reported that Lin Piao and his co-conspirators attempting a failed coup against Mao, had been killed in a mysterious plane crash while attempting to flee to the Soviet Union. Although the Cultural Revolution sputtered on till Mao's death in 1976, the Lin Piao episode spelt for all intents and purposes the end of the extremely radical experiment of the Cultural Revolution. Apart from the bitter memories of its victims, which have found incremental expression since then, what legacy, practically and in the realm of ideas, did the Cultural Revolution bequeath? Practically, Mao's ideas and thrust did not survive him, and as soon as his ideological nemesis Deng Xiao Peng was rehabilitated and brought back to power, the floodgates were thrown open to capitalism, just as Mao had feared, while retaining the Communist Party's hold on power. This 'neither fish nor fowl' hybrid system is what has emerged from the ashes of the Cultural Revolution. It rests on the implied social contract between the Party and the people that as long as the latter are ensured material comfort and increasing income and wealth, the Party's monopoly on power will continue undisturbed. Thus we have the spectacle of a capitalist economy with lingering traces here and there of the old collective order being presided over and encouraged by a Communist Party that justifies it by reference to considering the pursuit of wealth and riches as 'glorious'. The contradictions inherent in this hybrid arrangement burst forth from time to time in the form of taking the ultimate step to bring the political system in line with the economic base by turning China into a bourgeois democracy. This, however, remains an unresolved contradiction at the heart of the matter. Conceptually, while the idea that all revolutions require new generations of revolutionaries to prevent them degenerating over time and eventually succumbing to the inertia and spontaneous regeneration of the overthrown system (capitalism) has weight, the means to this end remain to be discovered. And that may well constitute the last word on the Cultural Revolution.

Business Recirder editorial June 1, 2016

'Peculiar' mindset Senate Chairman Raza Rabbani delivered a thoughtful and thought-provoking address at a seminar in Islamabad on May 31. Delivering a speech to a policy dialogue entitled "Future of fiscal federalism in Pakistan -- issues and options", the Senate Chairman explicated the imperatives facing the federation after the devolution of powers to the provinces under the 18th Constitutional Amendment, a tortuous exercise fathered and guided by none other than Raza Rabbani. Although the difficult task of forging parliamentary consensus to change the federal structure and in the process do away with the myriads of distortions introduced in the constitution by successive governments, particularly by the General Ziaul Haq dictatorship, achieved most of its objectives barring a few that still cause division and were left intact, Rabbani pinpointed the implementation failures in letter and spirit that have attended the exercise since the 18th Amendment was adopted in 2010. First and foremost, the Senate Chairman delivered an unequivocal message that if the democratic system was tampered with, the federation would be at risk. As to the provisions of the 18th Amendment, Rabbani deplored the fact that a 'peculiar' mindset had yet to accept the principle of provincial autonomy. Suggesting four basic steps as the way forward for fiscal devolution as envisaged in the 18th Amendment, Rabbani advocated giving financial powers to the Senate. Rabbani underlined the need for the National Financial Commission (NFC) Award to be given on time every five years and provided a better monitoring mechanism. He noted that the impending budget would be the second under the 7th NFC Award since the new Award was delayed due to one province's failure to nominate its member. He contended that the Federal Legislative List Part-II items were under the legislative and administrative control, in terms of policy and supervision, of the Council of Common Interests (CCI), therefore it would be appropriate for the budget pertaining to these items to be approved by the CCI and not the cabinet. The Senate Chairman emphasised that this was even more necessary when a new NFC Award was still pending. He also referred to Clause III of Article 172 pertaining to the 59 percent equal ownership of oil and gas between the provinces and the federation. Successive governments, he argued, have deliberately not taken any steps in this direction because the federation does not want to relinquish its stranglehold on these resources. Last but not least, Rabbani informed his audience that in almost all the federations of the world, the Upper House, which represents the federating units, has financial powers, whereas in some cases the federating units/nationalities also have fiscal powers. It is imperative, the Chairman reiterated the oft repeated argument, to carry out the (long delayed) census immediately as no meaningful planning for resource distribution can take place without it. Rabbani dismissed the argument that the provinces lack the capacity to absorb and manage their new devolved responsibilities as propaganda intended to provide an excuse to sabotage the rights granted to the provinces. Forceful advocacy of a cherished principle notwithstanding, the exercise to create and strengthen provincial capacity was not undertaken, therefore the issue could have dimensions other than malign purpose. Turning to education, the Chairman Senate pointed out that after the 18th Amendment, education, including higher education, had been devolved to the legislative and executive jurisdiction of the provinces. Although the envisaged commission on standards, etc, to replace the Higher Education Commission had yet to be set up even after six years, this task was considered crucial by Rabbani. What he did not touch upon however, is the unresolved spluttering debate about decision making regarding curricula and medium of instruction after the devolution. Rabbani has touched many a raw nerve and sensitive issue rooted in our past. The 'peculiar' mindset he referred to was the received wisdom for many years that a 'weak' Centre (meaning autonomy for the provinces) would be a disaster for the nascent state beset by external and internal challenges. While we celebrate the achievement of the 18th Amendment in reversing this line of thinking, which arguably laid the foundations for the truncation of the country and continuing conflict in some federating units, let us now gird up our loins to implement the remaining autonomy provisions of the Amendment and open up the debate on restructuring the constitutional fiscal architecture of the state, including giving the Senate, as the repository of the federating units' mandate, fiscal powers as is the norm in most countries.