Business Recorder Editorial December 24, 2019

Foreign policy debacle

What was being hinted at in media reports over the last few days has now been exposed by Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan. Speaking to Turkish media on November 20, 2019, President Erdogan without pulling any punches said Saudi Arabia had coerced Pakistan into skipping the Kuala Lumpur summit by threatening to expel the four million Pakistanis working in Saudi Arabia and replacing them with Bangladeshis and withdrawing the amount deposited in the State Bank of Pakistan last year for shoring up foreign exchange reserves. Erdogan concluded that Pakistan had to fall in line due to its economic difficulties. The Saudi ambassador in Islamabad has responded to Erdogan’s statement and termed it incorrect. It may be recalled that Malaysian Prime Minister (PM) Mahathir Mohammad, President Erdogan and PM Imran Khan in a meeting in New York in September 2019 had decided to hold the Kuala Lumpur summit of Muslim countries to address the woes of the Muslim world regarding their being left behind in terms of development by the non-Muslim countries, long standing issues such as Palestine, Kashmir, etc. Although Imran Khan was one of the three prime movers of the summit idea, he had to pull out at the eleventh hour after his visit to Riyadh to meet the Saudi leadership failed to persuade the latter, who instead threatened withdrawal of economic and financial help to Pakistan that it could ill afford. Imran Khan did call Mahathir to explain the reasons for his last minute withdrawal, and the latter even called Saudi King Salman to clear the air of suspicions and allegations being hurled by the Saudi-dominated Organisation of Islamic Conference (OIC) at the summit as weakening Islam because it was viewed as an attempt to create a new platform to unite the Muslim world instead of the OIC. The divisions in the Muslim world are hardly a secret, and the turnout of 20 countries in Kuala Lumpur instead of the 57 members of OIC invited showed the mirror to the ground realities. Erdogan and Mahathir have been critical of the OIC for being little more than a hand-wringing club when it comes to the issues facing the Muslim world.

The Pakistani Foreign Office’s new spokeswoman has issued a bland statement trying to paper over the debacle that has damaged Pakistan’s relations with both sides of the Muslim world’s divide. This can hardly be described as good foreign policy handling. The style of working of PM Imran Khan’s Pakistan Tehreek-i-Insaaf government, apart from other complaints regarding domestic affairs, has now been exposed by this foreign policy debacle. What has transpired could have been predicted, if PM Imran Khan had taken the trouble to have the Kuala Lumpur summit proposal weighed as to its pros and cons by the expert input of the Foreign Office. The only consolation Pakistan’s wounded pride can now boast of after this debacle is that Malaysia has clarified that it, Turkey and Pakistan are still on board regarding a joint television channel to combat Islamophobia worldwide. Perhaps Imran Khan forgot that the Saudis and the UAE were already seething at the snub by Pakistan’s parliament during the previous Nawaz Sharif government to the former’s request for sending Pakistani troops to aid the Saudi coalition’s part in the Yemen war. That decision proved correct for Pakistan’s national interest, which dictates that we should not get dragged into the region’s armed conflicts. Iranian President Hassan Rouhani was also prominent at the Kuala Lumpur summit, and his presence may have acted as the red rag to the Saudis. Pakistan is attempting to play a balancing act between its Shia neighbour Iran and the Saudi-led Sunni Arab states, a policy entirely in line with Pakistan’s interests. The ticklish part of that balancing act of course is to keep Riyadh mollified while retaining good relations with Tehran. Let the government learn from this debacle not to rush in where angels fear to tread and formulate its foreign policy in the light of its economic vulnerabilities and desire to stay out of conflicts that divide and wrack the Muslim world at present.

AGHS created voicepk.net on Twitter - Editorial

Students’ March

Students throughout Pakistan (around 60 cities and towns) came out in a march on November 29, 2019 to demand the restoration of student unions, higher allocations for education, lowering fees to provide access to education to poor students, and a host of other demands on issues that affect the youth in the educational field. Three notable characteristics of the march were: the unprecedented unity of the students, the leading role played by women students, and the slogans, placards and speeches in favour of a progressive Pakistan. None of these demands were against the law or Constitution, the rallies were orderly and peaceful, and no untoward incidents were seen.

For their pains of raising the universal demands of all students across the country, six of the organisers and 300 unnamed participants had sedition charges placed on them. Alamgir Wazir, one of the student leaders, was whisked away from Punjab University Lahore and remains incarcerated. The six organisers have either obtained or are in the process of getting bail before arrest. The government of Imran Khan is red-faced because some of their leaders had supported the students’ demands. This reveals the movers of these sedition cases as being other than the civilian government, and arguably the real power centre.

Business Recorder Editorial December 19, 2019

Musharraf’s sentence

The special court trying former COAS and president General Pervez Musharraf (retd) has through a short order found him guilty of high treason and delivered a split punishment 2-1, with the dissenting judge recommending life imprisonment rather than the death sentence imposed by the majority. The range of responses to this unprecedented verdict fall within the predictable. First and foremost, the army through its DG ISPR has expressed its dismay at the outcome, strongly criticising the verdict as delivered in haste while ignoring due legal process, including the constitution of a special court, denial of the fundamental right of self-defence, and undertaking individual-specific proceedings. Further, that the verdict has been received with a lot of pain and anguish by the rank and file of the military. The charges on which Musharraf was arraigned included the imposition of an Emergency on November 3, 2007 (thereby abrogating the Constitution) and forcibly confining more than 60 judges in their residences. While the defence counsel of Musharraf and the government and its allies have argued against the judgement in absentia as denying the defendant an opportunity to record his statement, the fact is, according to the special court, that Musharraf was offered at least six opportunities to record his statement in one manner or the other but failed to do so. It was held therefore that having been pronounced an absconder whose properties were seized as a result of non-appearance, the accused had forfeited his right of a defence. As to ‘haste’, the facts are noteworthy. The case was filed in 2013, Musharraf was indicted in 2014, but left Pakistan for Dubai in 2016 on medical grounds. He has not returned since and is presently reportedly seriously ill. The government, in the shape of the Attorney General of Pakistan has expressed its intention to appeal against the verdict once the detailed judgement is available, which should be in the next few days. Again predictably, the opposition parties, almost to a man, have appreciated and celebrated the verdict as strengthening democracy and constitutional rule.

The unprecedented charging and trial of a former COAS and president is truly an epochal, historic event. This is true even if the final result on appeal turns out different from the special court’s finding and punishment. It would have been inconceivable in the past to even consider such a course against a former chief of the most powerful state institution. Despite the fact that a succession of army chiefs mounted military coups in our history, thereby theoretically inviting the serious charge of high treason since they abrogated or held in suspension the supreme law of the land, the Constitution, the superior judiciary invariably upheld their actions on the grounds of the infamous doctrine of necessity, which were also validated by whatever parliaments were created in the wake of these coups. That is why Pervez Musharraf escaped any consequences for his 1999 coup and later tripped himself up by his ill-advised actions in 2007. It could be argued that the verdict may not entirely survive an appeal and even if it does, seems unlikely to be implemented by any stretch of the imagination. However, the army as an institution has unnecessarily involved itself in controversy by responding in the manner it has. In fact its very own formulation of ‘individual-specific proceedings’ could be turned on its head to advise the institution not to get bogged down in the defence of an individual, no matter how important, at the risk of embarrassment to the institution. Institutions are what Pakistan needs to strengthen, not the defence of individuals. When historians look back at this judgement in 2019, they could be tempted to cast it as a turning point in Pakistan’s history of repeated military coups and interventions and their validation by the superior judiciary and parliament. Certainly this verdict holds the promise of giving pause for thought to any future military coup maker.

Business Recorder Editorial December 18, 2019

COAS extension detailed judgement

The Supreme Court’s (SC’s) eagerly awaited detailed judgement on the issue of giving an extension to Chief Of Army Staff (COAS) General Qamar Javed Bajwa has laid down that there exists a vacuum in law regarding the appointment, tenure, and extension of service of any General, including the COAS. Instead, as pointed out by the Attorney General for Pakistan (AGP) during the proceedings of the case, there is an ‘unwritten institutional practice’ in vogue since long whereby the tenure of a General is considered to be of three years. The SC verdict says an ‘institutional practice’ cannot be a valid substitute for what has emerged from the court’s review of Article 243 of the Constitution, Pakistan Army Act 1952, Pakistan Army Act Rules 1954, and the Army Regulations (Rules), as the legal vacuum regarding the matter. The court, exercising judicial restraint, and on the assurance of the AG that the government would bring in the necessary legislation within six months, referred the matter to parliament to provide, through appropriate legislation, ‘certainty and predictability’ to the post of COAS. Mindful of the critical role of the COAS in commanding the army, the court allowed an extension of six months to General Bajwa, pending parliament’s fulfilling the legislative task in this time period. If, however, parliament fails to bring about the legislation to allow General Bajwa the extension of three years as desired by the government, he would stand retired at the expiry of the six months and the President would then appoint a fresh COAS on the advice of the Prime Minister. The SC expressed its astonishment that the constitutional appointment of the COAS was unregulated under a written Constitution. It also pointed out that the tenure of the COAS had a chequered history. The strengthening of institutions through proper regulation would contribute to the country’s prosperity. Chief Justice of Pakistan Justice Asif Saeed Khosa wrote an additional note pointing out that the army chief’s position was a very powerful one and unbridled power for such a position could be dangerous. The course suggested by the SC to parliament may go a long way in rectifying multiple historical wrongs, asserting the sovereign authority of parliament, and making the exercise of judicial power of the courts all-pervasive.

The detailed verdict of the SC has settled many questions, first and foremost the need for a lawful regulation of the terms and conditions, rules of appointment, tenure and extension of service of the COAS, arguably the most powerful post in our history. Given the pattern of military coups and interventions in that same history, the army chief, once in power, had no legal constraint (as has emerged in this case) to extending his tenure. That practice has been witnessed since the early 1950s. To critics who raise the question why this lacuna was never addressed earlier, the answer lies in the imbalance between the civilian and military sectors, which constrained the former from interfering in the affairs of the latter beyond a minimal point. It may be considered an inadvertent blessing that what had in the past been a simple matter and well entrenched practice, i.e. giving an extension to the COAS by a civilian government, became a judicial matter because of the inept handling by the Pakistan Tehreek-i-Insaaf (PTI) government. However, the task ahead may not be as easy as appears at first sight. First and foremost, the government has been making noises about a possible review petition being moved once the detailed judgement has been perused. If the government does so decide, the time-frame of six months may be eaten into and whatever the end result of the review petition, leave precious little time for the legislative task. As it is, in the polarised polity of today, consensus on such a bill may not prove an easy task, especially since despite the fact the SC has only laid down that a bill is needed to be passed by a simple majority and not a constitutional amendment requiring a two-thirds majority, the PTI government has only a razor-thin majority in the National Assembly and does not enjoy a majority in the Senate. That arithmetic suggests that without a consensus across the political divide, the bill may run into heavy weather and delays. That too may impinge on the six month deadline. Necessary as the SC has found the legislation regarding the COAS, that may prove the relatively easier part.

Business Recorder Editorial December 10, 2019

Lahore Darul Aman scandal

Lahore Darul Aman (Kashana)shelter home for women in trouble has recently been rocked by its Superintendent Ms Afshan Latif’s expose of the sexual exploitation of girls and young women at the hands of the Punjab Tehreek-i-Insaaf (PTI) government’s high ups and bureaucrats. Her shocking revelation, instead of causing concern in the provincial government’s ranks, elicited a strange and twisted response. First off the starting block was Punjab Law Minister Raja Basharat, who denied the allegation even before any investigation. Now Afshan Latif has stated that she is being pressurised by Social Welfare Director General Afshan Kiran Imtiaz and the Chief Minister’s Inspection Team to withdraw her allegation. On her refusal, she is being harassed and intimidated, including the police breaking down the door of the Darul Aman, ostensibly to teach Ms Latif an ‘unforgettable lesson’, a video of the break-in having recently surfaced. Afshan Latif says this was done to erase the evidence of the shenanigans going on at the shelter home and that she fears being arrested. Not only that, the Punjab government has blocked budgetary allocations to the women’s shelter, leaving the young women in its premises at the mercy of nature. Other unconfirmed reports on social media say Darul Aman has been taken over by the Punjab authorities and Afshan Latif has in fact been incarcerated, while the blame for whatever has been happening in Darul Aman is being shifted onto the shoulders of its management. Finally, only now has Punjab Chief Minister Usman Buzdar woken up to the issue and directed the Punjab Social Welfare secretary to conduct a full inquiry and take strict, impartial action against those found responsible.

It boggles the mind how the PTI government in general, and now its Punjab government, is functioning. Instead of lauding the courageous outing of the scandal against powerful individuals by Superintendent Afshan Latif, the Punjab government has tried to cover up the alleged culpability of its ministers and government servants by a ‘shoot the messenger’ approach. However, thanks to the impossibility of hiding or distorting the facts surrounding such matters in the age of social media, Chief Minister Usman Buzdar has been compelled to ‘take notice’ of the extremely embarrassing matter for a ruling party that never tires of touting its message of recreating the state of Medina in Pakistan. Normally and logically, what has happened after the floodgates of counter-accusations against Superintendent Afshan Latif were opened is what should have taken place in the first instance. After all no decent society can or should tolerate the sexual exploitation of young women who have sought shelter from their circumstances and troubles in the hope of leaving those behind within the theoretically secure walls of a Darul Aman. The whistle-blowing Superintendent Afshan Latif has been hard done by instead of being appreciated for her honesty, dedication and sense of responsibility towards her troubled young charges. The scandal and its handling so far have lowered the heads of every decent Pakistani who cares about his/her country in shame. Now the PTI Punjab government must ensure that not only is the inquiry into the affair thorough and objective (and not a witch-hunt against Afshan Latif), the perpetrators of sexual exploitation of these helpless young women burdened already with a troubled past and those facilitating such hanky-panky are brought to justice and appropriate punishments imposed. If the Punjab government fails in this duty, it is likely to find itself even more embarrassed. The prospect of being put on the mat for its dereliction of duty towards young women in shelter homes, being oblivious to their sexual exploitation, and initially mishandling the matter in a manner that casts suspicion on its intentions amongst the public and perhaps the courts should persuade Chief Minister Usman Buzdar and his government that it is in its own interests to see that justice is done in transparent and credible fashion.

Business Recorder Editorial December 7, 2019

In-house change

Former chief minister Punjab Shahbaz Sharif, who is in London these days looking after ill brother Nawaz Sharif, held a press conference on December 4, 2019 in which he backed the idea of an ‘in-house change’ to remove Prime Minister (PM) Imran Khan. He hit out bitterly at the alleged ‘National Accountability Bureau (NAB)-Niazi nexus’ in the wake of his assets being frozen back home. He said the sooner the country gets rid of PM Imran Khan, the better it would be for the country. He argued an in-house change was a perfectly constitutional, legal way forward. Imran Khan Niazi, he continued, had become a burden. He tried to dispel the impression that this was purely about himself and his present troubles, rather he posited the notion that he was talking only from the point of view of what was in the national interest. Shahbaz Sharif referred to the recent proceedings in the Supreme Court where NAB counsel Naeem Bokhari wilted before the probing questions of the court and decided the wiser course was to withdraw his appeal against the bail granted to Shahbaz Sharif in two cases, the Ashiyana housing scheme and the Ramzan Sugar Mills cases. Incidentally, even former principal secretary to the prime minister Fawad Hassan Fawad got bail in the housing scheme case, but he remains incarcerated in other cases. Shahbaz Sharif described the accountability process against him as a political witch-hunt orchestrated through NAB by a vitriol-spewing, egotistical, divisive, angry, selfish Imran Khan who put his own interests before those of the country. He pointed out that NAB summoned him in the Saaf Paani case and arrested him in the Ashiyana case. After five and a half months in NAB’s custody, he was sent on judicial remand and finally granted bail in February 2019. He lambasted the performance of Imran Khan’s government, which had delivered little else than high inflation, an increase in unemployment, and reduced the economy to its “present poor state”. He attempted to put the PM on the mat by asking where are those five million houses he promised to build. Shahbaz accused front benchers of the Pakistan Tehreek-i-Insaaf (PTI) government with laundering money to acquire mansions in Dubai, Europe and the UK. Big personalities in the PTI, he charged, had their employees as shareholders in their companies.

What was surprising about Shahbaz Sharif’s support to the idea of an in-house change is that it contrasted sharply with the decisions of last week’s opposition multi-party conference in which the Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz’s (PML-N’s) secretary general Ahsan Iqbal demanded new, independent, fair and transparent elections as the ‘only solution’ and warned that using any other option would result in leading the country towards destruction. The last may be hyperbole, but Pakistan People’s Party (PPP) chairman Bilawal Bhutto-Zardari was also present with Ahsan Iqbal and said on the occasion that all the opposition parties were agreed that they did not accept the present ‘selected prime minister’ and would not accept any ‘selected’ prime minister in future either, be it through elections or an in-house change. In this regard the PPP has changed its mind and its stance, since in mid-September 2019 it decided to bring an in-house change by putting pressure on the government’s allies and facilitators and even set a three-month deadline for the purpose. The fact is that the government enjoys a thin majority in the National Assembly and an in-house change would require as a first step the introduction by the opposition of a no-confidence motion against the PM and get it passed by a simple majority. But given the debacle of the no-confidence motion against the Speaker Senate, despite the opposition having a majority in the upper house, perhaps the PPP has had second thoughts on this course of action. However, what is intriguing about Shahbaz Sharif’s resurrection of the idea of an in-house change is that it seems to be based on the perception that the removal of Imran Khan and his replacement even by another PTI heavyweight would be the first breach in the walls of the fortress constructed around him by his alleged facilitators and would lead to a rapid disintegration of the government’s hold on power. Implicit in this scenario is the belief (or hope?) that Imran Khan’s backers may be having second thoughts about their choice. So far, however, there is little sign of this wishful thinking coming true.

Business Recorder Editorial December 5, 2019

Criticality of bureaucracy

Prime Minister (PM) Imran Khan and his Pakistan Tehreek-i-Insaaf (PTI) government have been slow to learn what for them has proved the painful lesson that running the government, let alone good governance, is simply impossible without the cooperation and willingness of the bureaucracy. This tilt owes its origins to the narrative of the PTI before it came to power last year (and continuing until now even after) that the bureaucracy was beholden to, if not an active supporter of, the previous government of the Sharifs. This attitude was echoed in the approach of the National Accountability Bureau (NAB) in treating leading bureaucrats who had served under the Sharif brothers at the Centre and in Punjab as ‘collaborators’ in the alleged corruption of the previous government. NAB set about arresting and publicly humiliating civil servants ‘tainted’ by association with the previous government in a manner that produced fear and uncertainty in the ranks of civil servants. The result was an almost complete paralysis of the government machinery, since bureaucrats could not be certain who would be next on NAB’s radar. Even decisions taken in good faith and that may have turned out to be erroneous began to be treated as felonies and misdemeanours, a development that persuaded the bureaucracy to retreat behind a ‘safety first’ attitude that froze critical decision making and implementation. The real loser as a result was the incumbent PTI government. To add to the malaise, civil servants were at a loss in the face of the dizzying speed with which the government changed or reversed its own decisions. Recently, the federal secretaries met and prepared a draft of amendments to NAB laws to be presented to the PM for approval. Amongst other recommendations, the draft suggested that responsibility be shifted to the federal government to apply NAB’s laws in cases involving more than Rs 500 million rather than the President or NAB chairman, as has been the practice so far. Further, that NAB’s authority to summon government officials be removed, NAB’s remand period be restricted to 14 days instead of the 90 days at present, provincial courts be given a shorter timeframe to determine a case, and a scrutiny committee comprising a secretary of the cabinet division, establishment division, chairman FBR, chairman SECP, a law official and secretary of the concerned division replace the present one headed by the chairman NAB. No member of the civil service be arrested without the approval of this reconstituted scrutiny committee, which should ensure that a full investigation is initiated. In short, the federal secretaries argued for taking action against bureaucrats on the basis of evidence rather than perception.

It is late but welcome that the government has realised what is in its own best interests. There are still lingering reservations though, especially if the graceless manner in which a DG FIA has been forced to resign in protest at being transferred on the eve of his retirement. However, if a fresh breeze is indeed starting to blow away the past preconceived notions and biases of the incumbents, and hopefully the worst of its past attitudes and practices, this is indeed all to the good. The massive reshuffle going on in the bureaucracy of late is a sign of the change, since so-called blue-eyed boys of the previous government are being called upon once more to take charge of the areas of their expertise. In the words of PM Imran Khan himself while speaking to a meeting with recently promoted officers, these promotions have been done purely on merit and the government expects the bureaucracy to work hard in the country’s interest. Bias and prejudice, laced with the acidic practices of NAB, have done no favour to this government or its governance. Bitter as it is, the lesson has to be learnt that civil servants are not necessarily politically aligned, even if appearances suggest so. They serve whichever government is in power. For a government that is in power for the first time, that lesson it seems is by now being well learnt.

Business Recorder Column December 3, 2019

Students’ mobilisation

Rashed Rahman

An unprecedented in recent times countrywide mobilisation of students across the state-run and private elite institutions of higher education was witnessed on November 29, 2019. Some 60 cities and towns all over the country became the site of protest rallies by students demanding the revival of student unions, lowering fees to provide better access to education for poor students, enhancing the education budget to six percent of GDP, etc. Prime Minister Imran Khan, Federal Minister for Science and Technology Fawad Chaudhry and some other worthies of the Pakistan Tehreek-i-Insaaf (PTI) government made sympathetic noises, particularly on the demand for revival of student unions, with Imran Khan going so far as to hint at their revival, but with a comprehensive code of conduct to prevent campuses turning into ‘battlefields’ as had happened in the past.

Ironically, while the top leadership was displaying these stances, the authorities were instituting sedition cases against the organisers and participants of this historic Students March, with one former student of Punjab University whisked away from the university’s campus and the arrest of some 300 others on the cards. What was the fault of the organisers and participants in this wholly peaceful demonstration asking for what are the fundamental rights of any section of society, particularly students? Only that they were guilty of peacefully raising their collective voice for demands that do not violate any laws. It is claimed by the authorities that these cases have been instituted because speeches were made at the rallies that fell within the purview of being anti-state and anti-institutions. ‘Anti-state’ is a stretch, a catch-all appellation for whatever is critical or dissident in our controlled democracy. ‘Anti-institutions’ is the euphemism currently in use for anything critical of the military establishment. The fault lies not with the critics but with the military establishment’s constant intervention and interference in politics. That terrain then inevitably attracts criticism.

The historical context bears keeping in mind. Students in developing countries such as Pakistan (previously dubbed the Third World) have been in the forefront of struggles against authoritarianism, military coups and martial laws, and now the not-so-covert control of national politics and narrative by the military establishment. Notable student mobilisations in the past include the 1961 assassination by the CIA of Congo’s independence leader Patrice Lumumba, the agitation against Ayub Khan’s University Ordinance in 1964, and the 1968-69 countrywide seven-month long agitation (in which the students were incrementally joined by the working class and political opposition parties).

The 1968-69 struggle managed to make the continuation of the Ayub Khan regime impossible but the movement had no answer to the imposition of martial law and the takeover by Army Commander-in-Chief General Yahya Khan. There followed a brutal repression against students, the working class, peasantry, journalists and political leaders and workers by the Yahya regime. In the obtaining circumstances of a countrywide (East and West Pakistan at the time) agitation however, the regime was forced to announce general elections to be held in 1970. These were arguably the freest and fairest elections in Pakistan’s chequered history. However, when the surprising result gave Sheikh Mujibur Rehman and his Awami League the majority, the Yahya regime drowned this democratic expression of the people in blood, losing half the country in the process because of Indian intervention in support of the rebellion in East Pakistan that broke out against the genocide of their people. 

Broken Pakistan was now sought to be put together again by the military handing over power to Zulfikar Ali Bhutto and his Pakistan People’s Party (PPP) as the party with the largest number of seats in the remaining Pakistan. No fresh elections were held to reflect the new reality of the country having shrunk to just what was West Pakistan. Bhutto’s mandate garnered in a general election in a larger Pakistan as the second largest party was used as justification for handing over the reins of power to him.

Bhutto’s political fortunes owed a great deal to the student-led 1968-69 agitation. The overwhelming character of that movement was left-wing. The promises Bhutto had made before attaining power now troubled his government, particularly the ‘threat’ from radical left wing students and workers. Hence the latter were ‘put in their place’ by repression beginning in Karachi in 1972, while the former were not so subtly defanged by supporting the Jamaat-i-Islami’s student goons (Jamiat). By 1974, the Jamiat had gained almost exclusive control of Punjab University and many other colleges and institutions of higher learning, first and foremost in Punjab, but extending throughout the country.

Resistance continued to the fascist violence through which the Jamiat silenced all dissent on campus, and this resistance threatened General Ziaul Haq’s military regime. After the 1983 Movement for the Restoration of Democracy (MRD) was crushed, Zia followed up by banning student unions in 1984 to pre-empt any student agitation. These unions were restored by Benazir Bhutto’s first government in 1988, but did not survive the demise of her government two years later. In 1993, the ban on student unions was challenged legally and ended up with the Supreme Court upholding the ban but qualifiedly in principle advocating the revival of student unions, provided a proper mechanism was devised to prevent the recurrence of violence on the campuses.

Of course all these events and developments never pinned the blame on organisations like the Jamiat as the authors of importing violence into institutions of higher learning. If there was countervailing violence from their victims, it was defensive in nature (Imran Khan please note). Successive governments ever since the ban have been pussyfooting around the issue without taking a clear cut position and implementing a revival of the student unions.

Now, 50 years after the 1968-69 student-led uprising and 35 years after the ban on student unions, the young have taken matters into their own hands. The leading role of young women students in this upsurge can only be appreciated and lauded. After the Aurat March earlier this year, this is the second demonstration of the undeniable truth that without women’s participation and coming forward to lead, no progressive change is possible.

Having said that, the real test for the students now looms. How they come together to combat the repression being loosed against them by this hypocritical government may well determine the direction and pace of the inevitable change on the agenda against an unjust, cruel, repressive and exploitative system that offers everything to the power and wealth elite and has nothing for the young, women, working class, peasantry, oppressed nationalities, religious minorities and the ordinary citizen finding it difficult now to make two ends meet or afford three meals a day. If this government had any sense (a commodity they have been at pains to prove is absent), they would embrace this upsurge by the students and youth, not seek to strangle it. But in that anomaly lie new battles ahead.

rashed.rahman1@gmail.com

rashed-rahman.blogspot.com

Business Recorder Editorial December 2, 2019

High treason case

The treason case filed against former COAS and President General Pervez Musharraf (retd) for imposing a state of emergency in 2007 and suspending the Constitution has dragged on without conclusion since 2013. In 2016, Musharraf was allowed to proceed abroad by the superior courts and the interior ministry on health grounds. He has since never returned to face the court proceedings. The special court trying the case perhaps relied on the Supreme Court’s ruling that the defendant loses his right to a legal defence if he continues to absent himself from the proceedings in announcing on November 19, 2019 that it would deliver the final verdict in the case on November 28, 2019. The Islamabad High Court (IHC) was approached by the complainant, the interior ministry, and Musharraf approached the Lahore High Court through their respective counsel to delay the verdict. The former argued the complaint against Musharraf had not been filed through an authorised person nor had the special court been formed properly, while the prosecution team was removed on October 24, 2019 after loopholes in the case were discovered, yet they submitted written arguments before the court without the ministry’s authorisation. Additional Attorney General Sajid Ilyas Bhatti informed the IHC that the government was about to notify new prosecutors but the special court concluded the proceedings without even engaging with the new legal team. The counsel for Musharraf on the other hand relied on arguments that the accused had not been afforded a proper opportunity to present a defence and that the special court had not even entertained his application seeking acquittal.

The IHC set aside the special court order regarding announcing the final verdict on November 28, 2019 just one day before. It directed the government to notify a fresh prosecution team by December 5, 2019. During the proceedings, it was conceded by Law Secretary Khashishur Rehman that the special court was indeed properly constituted with the approval of the federal cabinet. The IHC further asked the special court to fix a date for affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing the prosecution and defence while concluding the proceedings expeditiously. The special court has responded to the IHC’s decision by saying it is not bound by it, only by the Supreme Court’s directives. It has announced it will hear the case on a daily basis after December 5, 2019. It remains to be seen how this statement of ‘autonomy’ by the special court will play out.

Military dictators in our history have got away with violating the Constitution without any adverse consequences. Even General Yahya Khan was only declared a usurper by the superior judiciary long after he had vacated power. On the other hand, the superior judiciary’s track record in the past of validating military coups and martial laws left jurisprudence in Pakistan in a shambles. Musharraf’s case therefore assumes an extraordinary importance for being the first instance of a military ruler, despite having his 1999 coup endorsed by the Supreme Court and action thereunder indemnified by Parliament, to have been hauled up on treason charges for the emergency imposition in 2007. However, Musharraf has managed to avoid appearance in the special court on the grounds of ill health even before he left the country in 2016, and certainly since then. It is inconceivable that ordinary mortals and citizens could have received the kid glove treatment Musharraf has. This contrast simply reflects the powerful position enjoyed by COASs in our system, even after they have retired. The special court has gone out of its way to try and accommodate Musharraf’s appearance or even deposition by electronic and written means. This has not been taken advantage of by the accused over the years on one pretext or the other. It appears the special court finally lost patience with these dilatory tactics and is now determined not to brook any further delay. It will, however, have to take account at the very least of the IHC’s directives regarding the constitution of a fresh prosecution team and allowing at least Musharraf's counsel to argue his case. The outcome, however, remains as clouded as ever.

Business Recorder Editorial November 30, 2019

Investigation Officers taken to task

Chief Justice of Pakistan Justice Asif Saeed Khosa, addressing police officers during a visit to the Central Police Office in Lahore on November 23, 2019, made the timely and pertinent observation that if an Investigation Officer (IO) produces false witnesses in a case, he would be held equally responsible for the crime. He underlined the critical role of Investigation Officers and their instrumentality in the provision of justice, which includes their official responsibility to submit challansin court within the given time limit, according to the law. The Chief Justice emphasised that the testimony of false witnesses should not be made part of any record, as had been the wrong practice since 1951. It is time now that this practice should be discouraged at all levels. The courts have taken action against 15 false witnesses till now, the Chief Justice revealed. On the question of a true witness being ‘weak’ and lacking the courage to present himself in court, thereby opening the door to false witnesses, it needs to be pointed out that in our society, the rich and powerful are in a position to browbeat the poor and weak, and this repressive structure is what lies behind this particular flaw in our judicial system. What is missing, despite being debated and suggested over many years, is an effective witness protection programme along the lines of the system in vogue in developed countries. The Chief Justice went on to guide the police officers in attendance on the role of the judiciary: the institution was supposed only to do justice according to the law. False witness, he went on, is in itself a crime. The objective of the investigation carried out by an Investigation Officer was only to find out the ground realities and facts, not take the statement of the plaintiff as proof of the veracity of the First Information Report (FIR). These realities and facts as revealed by the investigation then had to be conveyed to the court.

There is much wrong with our creaking judicial system, not the least of which are the cumbersome procedures entailed in the pursuit of justice. If to these procedural and structural impediments is added the practice (some would say habit) of police IOs to bend the facts of a case either for malign purposes (including bribery and corruption) or sheer laziness and convenience, this obviously cannot serve the ends of justice. Interestingly, one cannot recall any instances in the past of any Investigation Officers being charged and punished for perjury because of presenting false witnesses or testimony in court. That is a lapse the judiciary needs to cogitate. While Chief Justice of Pakistan Justice Asif Saeed Khosa dilated in his address referred to above on some of the judicial and court system reforms he has instituted on his watch, including tackling the mountain of pending cases at all tiers of the judiciary, it is in the foundations of our investigation and prosecution system under the police that the origins of many of the flaws in our judicial system can be traced. Without reforming this base, the pyramid of the judicial system will continue to suffer from distortions, injustice, and the ensuing questioning of the credibility and capability of the judicial system to deliver justice according to the law.

Business Recorder Editorial November 29, 2019

A landmark case

The Pakistan Tehreek-i-Insaaf (PTI) government of Prime Minister (PM) Imran Khan has just passed through a nightmare few days. Regarding the extension in tenure by three years of the COAS General Qamar Javed Bajwa notified in August 2019 by Imran Khan, the government has had to face the kind of embarrassment before the Supreme Court (SC) that one would not wish on one’s worst enemies. And yet this is only the latest self-inflicted wound by the incumbents. It is just as well that Law Minister Farrogh Nasim resigned, ostensibly to defend the (SC-suspended) extension to General Bajwa before the SC since it was on his watch that the debacle unfolded. The level of incompetence enfolded the legality of the original notification as well as at least three fresh but just as flawed summaries/notifications presented before the SC. A superfluous amendment in the Army Regulations (Rules) was critiqued by the SC on the grounds that the impugned Regulation 255 had nothing to do with the COAS’s appointment or extension. At the same time, the legal wizards of the government were arguing before the SC that the extension/reappointment was under Article 243 of the Constitution, the legality of which was questioned by the SC. Had the SC chosen to, it could have created even more embarrassment for the government and the army. Leaning on the side of caution so as not to make matters worse and possibly create a constitutional/political crisis, the SC wisely chose a middle path that helped extricate the fumbling government from the self-created maze it seemed trapped in and avoided any vacuum of leadership in the army. In its short order, the SC allowed General Bajwa to continue in his position for six months in return for a commitment from the government that it would bring in legislation before that period expires to deal with the lacunae, gaps and anomalies in the appointment and/or extension in tenure of the COAS.

Now the ball is in the government’s court. How it proceeds from here on in this sensitive matter could either salvage something from the wreckage of its foolish and incompetent performance or reinforce the image of it being not quite up to the task of governance. One can understand (and there are statements on record by Imran Khan) the anxiety of the government in wanting General Bajwa to stay till near the end of its term. The PM and the COAS enjoy a rare mutual confidence of which we have been constantly reminded by the mantra of ‘being on the same page’. It is therefore doubly baffling how the government made such a mess of an issue so close to its heart and in its own perception critical to its continuation in office. The handling of the issue has proved a perfectly avoidable embarrassment to the government, the army, and even the superior judiciary. The post-verdict situation does warrant introspection from the civilian-military leadership. As to the superior judiciary being dragged by Indian media and other inimical sources onto the terrain of ‘fifth generation warfare’, there is no escape from the duty enjoined by the law and constitution and the now seemingly critical need to pronounce on the matter of COASs’ extension in tenure in the light of our history, laws and rules. Clarification of these matters is now an urgent and inescapable need. As to the government, while it reportedly seeks scapegoats to blame for its debacle, it should perhaps return to the drawing board and introspect on the glaring inadequacies and incompetency this entire episode has so startlingly thrown up.

The situation presents a sardonic comment on the way of governance in the country of 208 million people: how unfortunate it is that a government that has failed to honour its pledge of creating 10 million new jobs jeopardised the job of an army chief – perhaps the most secure government post. The upside of this episode, however, clearly indicates the country’s struggle towards attaining high levels of democracy.

Business Recorder Column November 26, 2019

War of words on CPEC

Rashed Rahman

US Assistant Secretary of State for South Asia Alice Wells virtually put the cat amongst the pigeons in a speech at the Wilson Centre in Washington on November 22, 2019 in which she cautioned and warned Pakistan about the pitfalls of the China Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) project. The thrust of her remarks about CPEC centred on the risk of Pakistan being pushed deeper into an already stifling debt burden, non-transparent and overpriced projects fostering corruption, and jobs and profits being repatriated to China. She argued that CPEC was not aid but a form of financing that guarantees profits for Chinese state-owned enterprises (SOEs), with little benefit for Pakistan. She advised us to ask tough questions of the Chinese regarding why they were pursuing an economic model in Pakistan that was so different from the model they themselves had pursued to achieve high economic growth. She also touched on the lack of transparency regarding the terms on which projects are being pursued under CPEC. She pointed to the $ 15 billion debt to the Chinese government already accumulated, along with $ 6.7 billion commercial debt.

Ms Wells underlined that these were loans, not grants, whose deferment in case Pakistan is unable to meet scheduled repayments would still leave an overhang that would hamstring Imran Khan’s reform agenda. (It is another matter that this has already happened, not because of CPEC, but because, according to Hafeez Sheikh, the government does not have the money.) Alice Wells also pointed to the fact that CPEC projects did not offer jobs to Pakistanis since both workers and supplies came from China, in the middle of a desperate need for jobs for Pakistanis. In contrast, Ms Wells argued, although the US could not muster SOEs to invest in Pakistan but private US companies offered a better economic model since they brought with them values, processes and expertise to build local capacities. She also touched on Gwadar port being developed by China, pointing to Indian (and, one could argue, western) sensitivities regarding the possibility of it morphing into a military-naval base for the Chinese virtually at the mouth of the Gulf through which some 25 percent of the world’s oil supplies pass.

In response, Chinese Ambassador to Pakistan Yao Jing, Federal Planning Minister Asad Umar and his ministry dismissed Alice Wells’ critique as ‘uninformed’, off the mark and propaganda. CPEC would not burden Pakistan with crippling debt, they asserted, and Yao Jing reiterated China’s adherence to its solid relations with Pakistan by saying if Pakistan was unable to meet its debt obligations to China, the latter would not insist on it but defer the repayments. The argument was also mooted that US, western and multilateral sources of lending were far more stringent on repayment conditions and schedules, with little or no flexibility or room for manoeuvre.

Alice Wells’ frank critique of CPEC comes amidst a period of rebuilding the turbulent US-Pakistan relationship and Washington’s recent launch of a major offensive against Chinese President Xi Jinping’s signature Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), of which CPEC is a part. Wells’ critique could be interpreted as a sign of Washington’s worry that it is losing strategic space in its relationship with Pakistan to rising global rival China. But it would be foolish to dismiss her arguments out of hand simply as propaganda or simply motivated by Washington’s strategic interests.

Whatever else one may say about it, there is no gainsaying the fact that China committed over $ 60 billion in investment in Pakistan under CPEC when no other country or international institution was willing. The initial phase of CPEC involves communications infrastructure and energy projects, with the Special Economic Zones (SZEs) along CPEC to be now developed in the second phase. This is all to the good, but irrespective of Alice Wells’ motivations, there do exist questions in Pakistani minds about CPEC for which clear answers are required.

First and foremost, the lack of transparency regarding CPEC is something that dates back to the previous Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N) government, with Minister in charge Ahsan Iqbal unable to satisfy queries regarding the shape and terms of CPEC. That situation continues to this day, leaving a residue of concern and confusion. Wells has referred to the possibility of surrender of assets and diminishing sovereignty if repayment schedules are not met. Perhaps she had in mind the case of the Hambantota port in Sri Lanka, which the Chinese developers took over under a 99-year lease when the recipient country was unable to service its debt incurred for what appears with hindsight to have been an unfeasible project in the first place (being off the main sea lanes passing by Sri Lanka, most traffic being handled by Colombo port on the western, opposite side of the island). There have been sketchy reports of similar actual or potential takeovers by China of projects that could not service their debts in Africa and Latin America. But while these examples may serve as a cautionary tale, China’s approach in CPEC appears different for the following reasons.

CPEC’s main aim is the development through trade (and its concomitant industrialisation) of its westernmost and troubled province of Xinjiang. The rapid but inherently unequal development of China over the last 40 years has produced, despite lifting 700 million people out of poverty and into a middle class existence, imbalances between the cities and the countryside, the eastern seaboard versus the inland hinterland, and between the obscenely rich billionaires and the middle class on the one hand and those ‘left behind’ amongst the working class and peasantry. Xinjiang is particularly sensitive since it has not been able to avoid the spillover from the Afghan wars in the shape of a Muslim extremist movement that seeks to break away from China. CPEC offers, through Pakistan and the new developing port of Gwadar on the Balochistan coast, a lifeline for the rapid development of Xinjiang to be able to offer the Muslim Uighurs of the province the same deal that has been implemented in the rest of China over the last four decades: economic prosperity (through the embrace of capitalism) in exchange for loyalty to Communist Party rule.

Pakistan dos not enjoy a reputation as a good negotiator. CPEC illustrates this truth. China’s need to obviate Muslim fundamentalism and extremism amongst the Uighurs could have been leveraged by Pakistan in its own interests. But old habits die hard, and Pakistan’s addiction to client state status (first the US, now arguably China) blinded us to the cards we held in our hand. Concerns amongst our business community about Chinese practices of leveraging project investment under CPEC to allow exclusive imports of Chinese plant and machinery and overwhelmingly Chinese technicians and even labour first found expression in the early days of the Imran Khan government when Advisor Razzak Dawood gave an interview to the Financial Timesto the effect that local businesses had yet to benefit from the spoils of CPEC. This annoyed the Chinese, and according to Mushahid Hussain, COAS General Bajwa had to rush to Beijing to mollify our Chinese friends.

The BRI, of which CPEC is a relatively small part, is the outcome of four decades of rapid capitalist development in China, whose outcome in line with the historical tendency of developed capitalism is now to seek outlets for investment abroad since the domestic market is no longer enough. Whereas western powers exercised this tendency initially through colonialism and imperialism, after WWII, they have instituted a worldwide system of extracting surplus from the developing world without (necessarily) occupying foreign lands. So while it is difficult to swallow Alice Wells’ rosy picture of western capitalism and its ‘benign’ effects in countries like Pakistan, we need to be aware of the risks a late developing capitalism in China could entail for us and our best interests.

rashed.rahman1@gmail.com

rashed-rahman.blogspot.com

Business Recorder Editorial November 26, 2019

New terms of endearment?

Relations between Pakistan and the US seem to have taken a turn for the better since the Pakistan Tehreek-i-Insaaf government of Prime Minister (PM) Imran Khan came to power last year. The latest positive development in these relations is the prisoner exchange of two western hostages held by the Taliban with three of the latter’s cadres, an exchange in which Pakistan has played an important part. As a follow up of this development, PM Imran Khan and US President Donald Trump had a telephonic conversation on November 21, 2019 in which the latter thanked Pakistan for its help in getting the western hostages released. White House Deputy Press Secretary Judd Deere released a statement after the conversation between the two leaders to reveal that they reaffirmed their commitment to strengthening the US-Pakistan trade relationship, which is reportedly on track to set a new record this year, as well as US investment in Pakistan and people-to-people ties. PM Imran Khan’s visit to Washington in July 2019 lent a positive dimension to the troubled ties. During the telephonic conversation, the PM once again brought the fraught situation in Indian Held Kashmir (IHK) to President Trump’s notice and reiterated Pakistan’s desire for the US president to follow up on his mediation offer on the issue during Imran Khan's July 2019 visit. In essence, Pakistan’s efforts for peace and reconciliation in Afghanistan are expected by Islamabad to provide diplomatic leverage to persuade Washington to play a role in the easing of the ongoing lockdown in IHK. However, realism dictates that we remind ourselves of the caveat President Trump introduced after that initial mediation offer, i.e. only if both sides wished it. Since India is stubbornly against any third party mediation, this is a bird that is unlikely to take flight anytime soon. Nevertheless, PM Imran Khan’s reiteration to President Trump of Pakistan’s desire for facilitating peace and reconciliation in Afghanistan must have gone down well with the US president. This is because Trump has made no secret of his desire to withdraw from Afghanistan, but without losing face and while ensuring all the sacrifices of US lives and money in constructing and supporting the Afghan government are not undone as soon as US troops leave.

It should be recalled that when President Trump assumed office in 2016, he made no bones about his annoyance at the fact that Washington had given millions of dollars in ‘aid’ to Pakistan since the US invasion and occupation of Afghanistan in 2001 and allegedly got nothing in return except the support of Islamabad to the Taliban responsible for US military casualties and other losses. It was this irritation that led Trump to announce the freezing of all ‘aid’ to Pakistan. The ground reality however is that even if it is conceded that Pakistan fathered the Taliban in 1994 amidst the chaos and anarchy of the intra-mujahideen civil war in Afghanistan, to think that the Taliban, let alone any proxies, are merely extensions of a sponsoring state’s authorities is to underestimate the dynamic that takes over wars of this nature over time. More often than not, the ‘proxies’ acquire autonomy from the original sponsor, sometimes to the point of independence. Pakistan may still have influence and leverage over the Taliban, as the prisoner exchange mentioned above indicates, but to equate this with Islamabad’s unlimited ability to persuade or pressurise the Taliban to do its bidding would be a mistaken understanding of the real situation. If the 9/11 attacks and their aftermath are taken as an example, Pakistan was unable to persuade the Taliban government to distance itself from Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda, the perpetrators of the 9/11 atrocity. Having said that, Pakistan still can and is willing more than ever to exercise its influence with the Taliban to facilitate the peace process. But for Islamabad to pay a positive role in this regard, Washington too has to wend its way back from Trump’s declaration that the peace talks are dead to re-engaging the Taliban in talks.

Business Recorder Editorial November 22, 2019

Winds of change?

Chairman National Accountability Bureau (NAB) former Justice Javed Iqbal while addressing an award distribution ceremony on November 19, 2019 made the startling comment that winds of change were coursing through the country and no one should think that the present rulers were exempt from accountability. Ostensibly the context was his strong contestation of the perception that NAB had been conducting one-sided accountability (if not a politically partisan witch-hunt). However, his statement that the perception of one-sidedness was incorrect as they had to first look into the cases of those who had been in power for the last 30-35 years and would now have to look into the cases of those who had been in power for the last 12 months or so sparked off a debate on the meaning of Justice Iqbal’s defence of NAB’s record. He went on to assert that there would be no deal, leniency or NRO-like concessions to anyone as there cannot be any compromise on the eradication of corruption. Justice Iqbal made it clear that the threats of the powerful and influential end outside the gates of NAB. NAB’s target of achieving a corruption-free Pakistan was a national duty that no one could deter him from carrying out. He advised those politicians who were on NAB’s radar and were criticising the accountability watchdog to opt for the plea bargain option. He said NAB was not allowed to work in Sindh but would not be deterred by the obstacles the Sindh government was allegedly putting in NAB’s path. The Chairman NAB highlighted the fact that 1,270 references were still pending before the accountability courts in which only 25 judges were hearing them. He advocated the number of judges be raised to at least 50 to ensure quicker disposal of these pending cases. Justice Iqbal conceded that investigating white-collar crime was no easy task, especially since such crime transcended borders.

While the speech of Justice Iqbal has set off a storm of speculation on whether the Pakistan Tehreek-i-Insaaf (PTI) government was now going to be targeted by NAB, it bears recalling that NAB has been severely criticised by the opposition Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N) and the Pakistan People’s Party (PPP) but of late also by the ruling PTI for ‘selective accountability’ and the ‘harassment of investors and the bureaucracy’. The latter in particular has aroused the ire of the government as it has impacted investment and paralysed the bureaucracy. If the purpose of Chairman NAB former Justice Javed Iqbal was merely to redress the widely held perception of one-sided accountability, there can be no quarrel with that. However, the timing and the explicit reference to the PTI government have certainly sent tongues wagging whether there is more to this development than meets the eye. If Justice Iqbal wishes to restore and enhance NAB’s credibility in the face of the negative perceptions of its functioning on his watch, he could do worse than address some of the anomalies if not rough methods that have characterised its actions. And if all-sided accountability is conducted to include the ruling party, that would certainly go a long way towards righting the negative perceptions of NAB’s track record so far. 

Business Recorder Editorial November 21, 2019

A visibly upset prime minister

In a long and rambling but aggressive speech at the inaugural ceremony of the Havelian-Mansehra section of the Hazara motorway on November 18, 2019, Prime Minister (PM) Imran Khan lashed out at his political opponents in his trademark style. Needless to say, the thrust was on corruption, accountability, and not offering any NRO to them, which he characterised as an ‘unforgivable sin’. He also lambasted the sit-in staged by Maulana Fazlur Rehman in Islamabad in which the two main opposition parties’ leadership also put in an appearance as a ‘circus on a container’, aimed solely at avoiding accountability. Boasting of being an expert at dharnas(sit-ins, a reference to his 126-day dharnain 2014), he took a swipe at the opposition’s sit-in by saying he had promised the protestors he would accept all their demands if they stuck it out for a month. He criticised the maulana and the leaders of his Jamiat-i-Ulema-i-Islam-Fazl (JUI-F) for remaining cosy in warm rooms while their workers braved the cold and the rain and said innocent seminary students were duped into participating. He also levelled the charge that the timing of the dharnadistracted attention from the crisis in Kashmir. He went on to argue that Shahbaz Sharif and Bilawal Bhutto Zardari joined hands when asked to return looted wealth. He then mocked Bilawal by mimicking him, a new low even by Imran Khan’s ‘lofty’ standards. Questioning Bilawal’s credentials as a ‘liberal’, Imran Khan dubbed him ‘liberally corrupt’. Bilawal gave it back to Imran Khan in similar vein.

But through all the familiar rhetoric and fire and brimstone the PM delivered, the really important message was the one he sent to the judiciary. Addressing the Chief Justice of Pakistan Justice Asif Saeed Khosa and senior judge of the Supreme Court Justice Gulzar Ahmed, he asked them to restore public trust in the judiciary by ensuring speedy, quick justice for all, high and low. What was surprising about this ‘message’ was the fact that in the past Imran Khan and his Pakistan Tehreek-i-Insaaf (PTI) had benefited greatly from this same judiciary. The only way to make sense of this diatribe was logically to surmise that the PM was angry at the verdict delivered by the Lahore High Court (LHC) allowing ailing Nawaz Sharif to travel abroad for treatment on a personal surety of returning. Imran Khan sarcastically said the government had ‘only’ asked for indemnity bonds of Rs 7 billion from the Sharifs, which for them was small change. In the next breath he questioned the undertaking accepted by the LHC. Repeating (ad nauseam?) his ‘ruthless accountability’ mantra, Imran Khan used analogies from his cricketing days to indicate he was up for the challenges confronting him. Political and legal circles have criticised the PM’s speech as below the dignity of his exalted office. It was a polarising speech, as though the country did not have enough of that commodity already. Commentators are weighing in with analyses that argue the LHC decision has really got Imran Khan’s goat because his alleged scheme to extract Rs 7 billion in indemnity bonds from the Sharifs could have been used as ammunition to argue he had recovered this looted wealth as he has been promising to do for years now. Others are speculating whether the speech portends some kind of pressure or apprehension in Imran Khan’s mind that the present set-up may be unravelling. Discontent amongst the PTI’s coalition partners, Pakistan Muslim League-Quaid (PML-Q), the Muttahida Qaumi Movement (MQM) and Sindh’s Grand Democratic Alliance (GDA) has grown and is now being openly expressed. On the other hand, Director General Inter-Services Public Relations Major General Asif Ghafoor has felt compelled to reiterate the ‘same page’ mantra. The flurry of speculation and conspiracy theories may or may not be the harbinger of political change in the offing, but Imran Khan’s speech and the other developments mentioned above are feeding into the rumours furnace.

Business Recorder Column November 19, 2019

Shooting oneself in the foot, repeatedly

Rashed Rahman

The Pakistan Tehreek-i-Insaaf (PTI) government of Imran Khan has shown a rare talent for shooting itself in the foot again and again. The whole handling of the Nawaz Sharif health issue is the latest and perhaps most egregious example of this habit. Despite Prime Minister (PM) Imran Khan himself making noises about not politicising Nawaz Sharif’s health and medical treatment issues, he and his government and party leaders seem unable to escape the trap of misplaced concreteness, lowering the political discourse into the gutter, and making utter fools of themselves.

As though there had not been enough stupidity on display on the issue, Attorney General Anwar Mansoor Khan and Accountability hatchet man Shahzad Akbar once again tried to ‘creatively’ portray the Lahore High Court (LHC) verdict on letting Nawaz Sharif proceed abroad without the government’s desired indemnity bonds of over Rs seven billion as a ‘victory’ (although patently hollow) for the government. In a press conference on November 17, 2019, they tried to depreciate the LHC decision as ‘interim’ (i.e. final judgement yet to come in January 2020 at the earliest, by which time it may not matter), and based on humanitarian grounds that vindicated the government’s stance on assurances required to ensure Nawaz Sharif’s return, all this while announcing the decision would not be challenged in the Supreme Court. Here too the house divided that PTI is produced out-in-the-relative-cold minister Fawad Chaudhry’s wisdom that it should be challenged. This is just another example of the confusion and lack of discipline in the ranks of the PTI.

Had the LHC verdict truly been an expression of the government’s thinking and wishes as Mansoor and Shahzad tried to interpret it, why would the federal cabinet have asked its legal team to study the judgement and brief it so it could discuss it knowledgeably regarding the issue of removal of Nawaz Sharif’s name from the Exit Control List (ECL)? If truth be told, the LHC has delivered a body blow to the PTI government’s credibility and image. Now after all this to and fro palaver, Nawaz Sharif seems poised to fly out to London today (November 19, 2019).

Is that the end of the story? Will Nawaz Sharif fulfil the commitment to the LHC that he would return in four weeks or as soon as the doctors declared him fit? There is no reason to think otherwise, given his track record of having returned in unfavourable political circumstances during the Musharraf regime’s dying days and even when his late wife was dying in hospital in London. Let us hope, in the spirit of tolerance extended to political rivals in a democracy and the basic principles of humanitarianism and decency that Nawaz Sharif recovers and returns to face his court and other troubles. He is certainly not expected to fritter away a lifetime’s investment in his party’s fortunes at this point by running away.

The conspiracy theory lobby, being the guardians of the only growth industry in Pakistan, is going wild with theories of the ‘same page’ mantra being over. Whether this is premature wishful thinking or not, the ‘evidence’ is sketchy, speculative, and unconvincing. What are the ‘signs’ being referred to to prove this latest venture into the land of dreams and nightmares?

One, the role played by the remnants of the original King’s Party, the Pakistan Muslim League-Quaid (PML-Q), in the shape of the Chaudhry brothers is cited. They took presumably a message from their masters to Maulana Fazlur Rehman regarding his sit-in in Islamabad. The terms of endearment on offer may not have been enough to persuade the Maulana to desist from his protest campaign completely, but it did succeed halfway in ‘convincing’ the Maulana to give up the increasingly lonely perch atop the sit-in stage in favour of a dispersed campaign dubbed Plan B. The Chaudhries have also openly advised Imran Khan to let Nawaz Sharif go abroad for treatment. Two, the Muttahida Qaumi Movement (MQM) has also been making similar noises vis-à-vis Nawaz Sharif of late and complaining in the same breath that it has gained little or nothing from its alliance with the PTI.

It needs to be understood that the PML-Q and MQM were inducted into the coalition government, along with the usual collaborators with every government, i.e. the colonial-era created landed class of southern Punjab, as ‘insurance’ against Imran Khan in power suddenly developing a Nawaz Sharif-style ‘independence’. However, the sane advice of the Chaudhries and MQM may just be a message to the government to halt its self-destructive tendencies, not necessarily an abandonment at this stage. With ill-advised advisers, Imran Khan is in trouble across the board, whether it be his by now tired corruption mantra, mishandling of the economy, parliament, and opposition. Those who have dumped all their eggs in Imran Khan’s basket seem worried behind the scenes by his stubbornness and incompetence. However, lacking their own Plan B (the other two main opposition parties having their backs to the wall), the powers-that-be that inducted Imran Khan through a flawed and manipulated election in 2018 must be burning the midnight oil to rescue the country and themselves from one of the worst governments in our history.

If a new Plan B cannot be found, all bets are off vis-à-vis the crisis of a vacuum of political leadership yawning in front of us and whose concequences are difficult to foretell at this point in time.

rashed.rahman1@gmail.com

rashed-rahman.blogspot.com

Business Recorder Editorial November 15, 2019

A war without end

In an interview with ABC TV on November 9, 2019, US Chairman Joint Chiefs of Staff General Mark Miley has predicted that US troops would remain in Afghanistan for several more years to add to the 18 years they have already spent there. He reminded us that Washington sent troops to Afghanistan because the country was used as a base to launch the 9/11 terrorist attacks on the US. The deployment had one clear objective, the General continued, and that was to ensure that Afghanistan would never again be a haven for extremists to attack the US. The mission, he said, is not yet complete, is ongoing, and has been ongoing for 18 years. In order for that mission to be successful, the Afghanistan government and security forces are going to have to be able to sustain their own internal security to prevent terrorists using their territory to attack other countries, especially the US. The General’s ‘minimalist’ description of the US ‘mission’ in Afghanistan is a far cry from the ambitious talk of ‘nation building’ that accompanied the early years after the US invasion and occupation of Afghanistan. Wisdom dawned slowly as the following years proved the US was barely able to fend off a burgeoning Taliban insurgency, what to talk of nation building, a concept in any case questionable through the agency of a foreign occupying force. Not only that, it is also far removed from US President Donald Trump’s oft repeated desire to extract US troops from an unending war. For that purpose, Trump had authorised direct talks with the Taliban in Doha, Qatar, starting from September 2018, a tortuous and long drawn process that finally seemed to be on the verge of a breakthrough a year later when Trump abruptly cancelled a meeting in the US with Afghan President Ashraf Ghani and the Taliban after a series of Taliban attacks killed US and NATO soldiers. However, in late October 2019, Trump sent peace negotiator Zalmay Khalilzad back to the region to explore restarting the collapsed talks. That ongoing effort has yet to yield any tangible results. It seems the US is now holding out for a Taliban ceasefire or at the very least a reduction of violence to improve the atmospherics for a re-engagement.

Meanwhile Pakistan’s foreign secretary and the head of ISI visited Kabul on November 11, 2019 for discussions on a host of issues that have recently increased tensions between the two uneasy neighbours. The issues involve, amongst other things, the Afghan complaint that their Ambassador in Islamabad was summoned to the ISI headquarters and the personnel there violated diplomatic norms and principles. Pakistan has its own set of complaints of the harassment of the officers and staff of its Kabul Embassy at the hands of Afghan security and intelligence personnel. Fencing of the Pakistan-Afghanistan border has also ratcheted up tensions and even led to exchange of firing and casualties, both civilian and military. The discussions in Kabul appear to have had a positive outcome as both sides agreed to set up technical committees to sort out these issues and some minor ones such as a dispute over an Afghan market in Peshawar. While Pakistan and Afghanistan wrestle with managing their relations, keeping them on an even keel and preventing conflict, the shadow of a seeming war without end looms over their heads as well as those of the region and the world. Pakistan-Afghanistan relations, historically tense, need to be kept within acceptable confines to prevent the likely and ever threatening spillover of the violence in Afghanistan into Pakistan, a prospect that brings the lack of a resolution of the US’s longest foreign war into sharper focus.

Business Recorder Column November 12, 2019

A medley of concerns

Rashed Rahman

Surveying the national and regional landscape yields a plethora of issues of concern with profound implications for the future. Let us take up the regional aspect first.

The Kartarpur Corridor that has allowed India’s Sikhs and the considerable Sikh diaspora around the world to visit the shrine of Baba Guru Nanak Dev is a breakthrough development that has fulfilled the long standing desire of the Sikhs for access to the holy site. The inauguration ceremony on November 9, 2019 addressed by Pakistani Prime Minister Imran Khan was drenched with emotion, warmth and goodwill on all sides. Peripheral reports in recent days that the Kartarpur Corridor initiative was likely to resurrect India’s suspicions that Pakistan was once again playing the ‘Sikh card’ were mercifully laid to rest when even Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi on the day of the inauguration thanked Imran Khan for his cooperation on the opening of the Kartarpur Corridor.

On the same day, the Indian Supreme Court awarded the land on which the razed Babri Masjid stood to the Hindu community to build a Ram Temple on the purported birthplace of Lord Rama. Disappointed as the Indian Muslim community was on the apex court’s overturning the Allahabad High Court’s verdict dividing the Babri Masjid site land two-thirds, one-third between the Hindu and Muslim communities, a verdict appealed by both sides in the Supreme Court, their response was highly restrained and respectful of the Supreme Court while reserving their right to disagree with it. Stringent security measures for fear of communal violence at and around the site proved not to be needed, at least so far. However, whether this deep wound for Muslims, including resentment at no punishment for those who started the controversy in 1949 by placing Hindu gods’ idols in the Babri Masjid or razing it to the ground in 1992, the latter act resulting in 2,000 persons killed in communal riots, would continue to be responded to with this exemplary restraint remains to be seen. The Supreme Court decision has further polarised the religious divide in India and heightened the alarm over the incremental transformation of India into a Hindutva state and society. That, as always, could also have spillover effects on Pakistan-India relations.

At home the ridiculous handling by the government of Nawaz Sharif’s health crisis has blackened its face and threatens far worse if, God forbid, something happens to him, either in Pakistan or even abroad. The government cannot now escape the blame for being cavalier about his deteriorating health, making fun of his eating habits and showing the height of insensitivity and lack of basic humanity and decency. As usual, only when things had reached a pretty pass did it dawn on the government that it had better change course. Even then, despite Prime Minister Imran Khan’s instructions to ministers and party leaders not to politicise Nawaz Sharif’s health issue or make disparaging statements about it, some insensitive Pakistan Tehreek-i-Insaaf (PTI) heavyweights could not contain their basest impulses and continued to rant on about the matter in a highly inappropriate manner.

As these lines are being written, the issue of the removal of Nawaz Sharif’s name from the Exit Control List to allow him to fly to London for treatment remains a political football being tossed between the government (ministry of interior) and the National Accountability Bureau (NAB), with neither side seemingly prepared to take responsibility for putting their imprimatur on the removal order. Meanwhile Nawaz Sharif’s critical condition is not helped, and may even worsen because of this unnecessary stonewalling and delay. It is surprising how, despite having been persuaded in principle of the necessity of allowing Nawaz Sharif’s treatment abroad, the government has thrown the ball into NAB’s court, inviting further wrath if the delay proves detrimental to Nawaz Sharif’s health. It appears the government is still so much a prisoner of its ‘container’ rhetoric that it cannot even consistently recognise and act in a manner that is in its own best interests.

The PTI government has by now set new records in making parliament dysfunctional and legislating through Ordinances. The other day, reportedly on Imran Khan’s instructions, 11 Ordinances were passed by the National Assembly within half an hour without any debate or discussion. That has earned the Deputy Speaker Qasim Suri the prospect of a no-confidence motion, however that may turn out. Rule by Ordinance has replaced legislation through the normal means and channels of parliament, which stands rendered dysfunctional. The Speakers of the Senate, National Assembly and Punjab Assembly are seen not only siding with the treasury during sessions on almost all occasions, they have regularly violated their impartial status as custodians of the House by participating in political parleys with the opposition on behalf of the government. Parliament’s rules and conventions are being shredded as we speak.

The Maulana Fazlur Rehman-led sit-in in Islamabad seems to have lost steam after a few days and the virtual withdrawal of the Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz and the Pakistan People’s Party. That dies not mean the nuisance value of the Maulana has been reduced to zero. In fact his sense of standing alone may persuade him and his followers that desperate measures are now required, opening the door to possible confrontation with the government. Wisdom dictates the Maulana should be mollified and given a face-saving way out of the impasse before things get out of hand.

Media censorship has now found a new companion: artistic expression. An art installation as part of the Karachi Biennale 2019 that represented symbolically those subjected to enforced disappearance or killed in the metropolis over the years was reportedly closed, smashed and trucked away by plain clothes personnel under the command of a Colonel sent by the Corps Commander. This may or may not be true, but the act of suppression of artistic creativity has added one more blot on our image of intolerance and strangling of critics and dissidents.

Meanwhile, despite the government’s daily dose of optimistic casting of the floundering economy as on the path to (if not arrived at) stabilisation and a subsequent turnaround, the lived experience of the people in their daily shopping for groceries and other necessities says the opposite. Inflation is at an all-time high, industry, trade, commerce, the wholesale and retail markets are struggling, jobs are being lost all round, and a gloomy desperation is settling in in people’s minds. By the way, this includes increasing numbers of erstwhile PTI activists and supporters, whose hoped-for socially upwardly mobile dreams under PTI lie shattered.

People in Pakistan have grown so desperate under the revolving door of military rule or incompetent civilian leadership that they have developed a knee-jerk response of clutching at straws. In this museum of dashed hopes can be lumped Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, Benazir Bhutto, Nawaz Sharif and now Imran Khan. Where are the people to turn to now? There are no easy or quick answers to that one. Only a long, hard struggle for mobilising a movement for change from this pattern of civilian incompetence and military domination can provide the chink of light in a very long dark tunnel.

rashed.rahman1@gmail.com

rashed-rahman.blogspot.com