Business Recorder Editorial December 15, 2020

Business Recorder Editorial as written by me on December 12, 2020:

 ‘Third force’ intervention

 

Chairman Pakistan People’s Party (PPP) Bilawal Bhutto Zardari called on Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N) Vice President Maryam Nawaz at her Jati Umra residence in Lahore on December 11, 2020. Bilawal offered condolences on Maryam’s grandmother’s recent demise, but the real significance of this meeting lay elsewhere. For one, the meeting took place on the eve of the opposition Pakistan Democratic Movement’s (PDM’s) Lahore rally at Minar-e-Pakistan on December 13, 2020. Second, this meeting and the joint efforts of the two young leaders of the two main political parties in the PDM reflect the transition to the next dynastic generation. This generation does not carry the burden of the past differences and collisions between their elders. And their rapport seems to offer the opposition benefits in the PDM campaign as well as better relations between their respective parties in the future. In fact Bilawal has already instigated a discussion within PDM on the PPP’s electoral alliance with the PML-N and even Maulana Fazlur Rehman regarding this idea and the benefits accruing to all the component parties in the next election, but especially the PPP if it sacrifices its Sindh government through the en masse resignations of parliamentarians on the PDM’s agenda. Of course only time will tell whether such an electoral alliance becomes a reality and what it offers. For the moment, in the increasing heat of the PDM campaign, Bilawal categorically ruled out PDM creating a situation where the ‘third force’ may intervene. Of course, there is much history to peruse in Pakistan’s past regarding such a development, and the track record does not inspire total confidence that such a scenario can be categorically ruled out. However, the nature of the ‘intervention’, if it comes, is debatable. It is unlikely a direct military takeover would be viable in today’s international climate. With the possible exception of all-weather friend China, Pakistan could find itself bereft of the aid and loans on which it still crucially depends from bilateral and multilateral sources. An indirect intervention is of course already the stuff of the opposition’s critique, dubbing the 2018 elections manipulated if not rigged in order to bring a ‘selected’ prime minister to power. This does not mean the establishment is incapable of changing course in the face of a crisis that renders the present plans unsustainable. But there are no signs of that so far. Maryam stated after the Jati Umra meeting that government ministers were now approaching the PML-N for talks, but she had rejected this in line with her view from the beginning that there should be no talks with this government. The implication being that the opposition considers talks with the government less important than ‘talks’ with its powerful backers. The government’s recent offer of talks (including by Prime Minister Imran Khan) appears to reflect some nervousness in the power corridors. However, qualified as the offer is by the government’s usual rhetoric about ‘No NRO’, etc, it seems a non-starter, not the least because it is too little, too late after years of the brutal castigation of the opposition. This view, according to one report, is shared by some senior government ministers, who are dejected by the lack of political thinking in the Pakistan Tehreek-i-Insaaf’s (PTI’s) top ranks, which have never discussed the crisis and how to handle it in any meaningful manner.

Political predictions by their very nature are an inexact science. However, the government’s recent actions against facilitators of the Lahore PDM rally (including DJ Butt and the restaurant owner who served food to Maryam Nawaz in Lakshmi Chowk, Lahore the other day) smack of both panic and stupidity. If history is any guide, imposed governments eventually run out of credibility, particularly if they, in their wisdom, consider pillorying their opponents the only way to cling to power. Such a course weakens the possibilities of any national dialogue, let alone the (belated) assertion by Imran Khan that parliament is the best forum for a dialogue between the two sides of the political divide. Increasingly, it appears the die is cast and confrontation looms. The result is unpredictable, but although both sides must share the blame to respective extent, it is the government that has most to lose and the greater responsibility to keep the system from going south. At present, however, the weight of logic rests with the sceptics, including those within the government’s ranks, that the government has played its cards badly and will now have to bear the consequences, along, of course, with the country.

And as published by the paper on December 15, 2020:

There’s dire need for govt-opposition dialogue

 

First things first. The 11-party opposition alliance – Pakistan Democratic Movement (PDM) – has ruled out talks with the government. PDM convenor Maulana Fazlur Rehman has asked the establishment to move aside from the way of people or else there could be massive unrest in the country because of obvious reasons. That was perhaps the gist of what PDM leaders said at their power show at Lahore’s Minar-e-Pakistan on Sunday. Yesterday, PDM extended an “ultimatum” to government, asking it to quit by Jan 31, 2021. Two days before their much-hyped rally in Punjab’s capital, Chairman Pakistan People’s Party (PPP) Bilawal Bhutto Zardari called on Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N) Vice President Maryam Nawaz at her Jati Umra residence. Bilawal offered condolences on Maryam’s grandmother’s recent demise, but the real significance of this meeting lay elsewhere. For one, the meeting took place on the eve of the opposition Pakistan Democratic Movement’s (PDM’s) Lahore rally at Minar-e-Pakistan on December 13, 2020. Second, this meeting and the joint efforts of the two young leaders of the two main political parties in the PDM reflect the transition to the next dynastic generation. This generation does not carry the burden of the past differences and collisions between their elders. And their rapport seems to offer the opposition benefits in the PDM campaign as well as better relations between their respective parties in the future. In fact Bilawal has already instigated a discussion within PDM on the PPP’s electoral alliance with the PML-N and even Maulana Fazlur Rehman regarding this idea and the benefits accruing to all the component parties in the next election, but especially the PPP if it sacrifices its Sindh government through the en masse resignations of parliamentarians on the PDM’s agenda. Of course only time will tell whether such an electoral alliance becomes a reality and what it offers. For the moment, in the increasing heat of the PDM campaign, Bilawal categorically ruled out PDM creating a situation where the ‘third force’ may intervene. Of course, there is much history to peruse in Pakistan’s past regarding such a development, and the track record does not inspire total confidence that such a scenario can be categorically ruled out. However, the nature of the ‘intervention’, if it comes, is debatable. It is unlikely a direct military takeover would be viable in today’s international climate. With the possible exception of all-weather friend China, Pakistan could find itself bereft of the aid and loans on which it still crucially depends from bilateral and multilateral sources. An indirect intervention is of course already the stuff of the opposition’s critique, dubbing the 2018 elections manipulated if not rigged in order to bring a ‘selected’ prime minister to power. This does not mean the establishment is incapable of changing course in the face of a crisis that renders the present plans unsustainable. But there are no signs of that so far. The government’s recent offer of talks (including by Prime Minister Imran Khan) appears to reflect some nervousness in the power corridors. However, qualified as the offer is by the government’s usual rhetoric about ‘No NRO’, etc, it nonetheless throws up an opportunity for the opposition to grab it with both hands. That the opposition has stepped up its pressure on the government is a fact. It needs to speak from a position of strength, not of arrogance. Not only will an opposition-government dialogue effectively forestall ‘third force’s’ intervention, it will possibly lead to a revisit of government’s ‘No NRO’ rhetoric. The country cannot afford any protracted period of political instability. The situation, in fact, underscores the need for reprising a high economic growth, which will need, among other things, greater political stability.

Business Recorder Column December 15, 2020

PDM’s Lahore show

 

Rashed Rahman

 

The Pakistan Democratic Movement (PDM) held its much-trumpeted rally in Lahore at the historic Minar-e-Pakistan on December 13, 2020 on a cold wintry day. Given the hype generated by the organisers before the rally, the result was less than inspiring. PDM leaders had been labelling the Lahore rally as a ‘make-or-break’ moment, but on the evidence of the gathering, substantial though it was, and the response of the crowd, it proved underwhelming. Admittedly, the severe cold may have proved a damper, but PDM is hard put to it to justify the outcome despite the government and police deciding not to seriously block roads and routes leading to the city and on to Minar-e-Pakistan.

Whether the Pakistan Tehreek-i-Insaaf (PTI) government assessed this to be the best course, a reversal of some of its threatening (even blood-curdling) statements on the eve of the rally, is not known. Speculation abounds that it may have consulted its powerful backers in the establishment and was so advised on the basis of their assessment of the potential of the rally.

At the rally itself, the PDM leaders put on a brave face, reiterating their by now well known rhetoric. This includes the stance of no talks with the government and girding up their loins for the march on Islamabad, which Maulana Fazlur Rehman stated would occur end-January, early February 2021. The Maulana and other leaders were at pains to argue in their speeches at the rally that a ‘rigged’ system was unsustainable, not the least because the choice of the ‘selected’ has turned out to be such a blunder.

Though the narratives of the PDM and PTI government are by now coming out of the public’s ears because of constant repetition, there appear to be some not so hidden problems in the PDM alliance. For one, the resignations issue has engendered hesitation and internal fissures. Whether the report (denied by Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz, PML-N, spokesperson Azma Bokhari) that a considerable number of PML-N parliamentarians (and presumably their supporters) did not turn up at the rally because of reservations about the resignations demanded of them by their party leadership is correct or not, it would come as no surprise if the ubiquitous establishment had approached such elements and played on these sentiments. The Pakistan People’s Party (PPP), despite its stance on the ‘selected’ government, has more stakes in the present dispensation than anybody else in the shape of the Sindh government. Despite the receipt of resignations from their parliamentarians, both the PPP and the PML-N need to go back to the drawing board to reconsider this tactic, whose efficacy is at present in doubt in any case. Despite the possible scenario of the present dispensation being emptied of whatever moral and political credibility it still has by en masse opposition resignations, there appears little hope that this government or its backers will take that into consideration and make way for fresh elections.

Maulana Fazlur Rehman’s argument that state institutions should not stand in the way of the people’s will has weight. He warns of possible anarchy if these institutions and the people come face-to-face in the event of no solution to the present impasse. Nor, the Maulana continues, can national solidarity be ensured if people’s rights continue to be violated.

Akhtar Mengal of the Balochistan National Party-Mengal (BNP-M), a recent defector from the PTI coalition government to the opposition PDM after being frustrated by failure to extract from PTI what it had promised him vis-a-vis Balochistan, reminded the rally audience of his benighted province’s woes. The most heart rending of his words were the reminder that 10,000 people are still ‘missing’ in Balochistan and no one seems to care. His smarting wounds may have been assuaged to some extent by the PDM rally’s resolutions, one of which highlighted the ‘robbery’ of Balochistan’s natural resources and its deprivation in the same breath.

Maryam Nawaz revealed that the 2011 rally held at Minar-e-Pakistan by the PTI, which launched it as a ‘serious’ force in the country’s politics, was orchestrated by none other than former ISI chief Lieutenant-General (retd) Shuja Pasha. The latter stuck with the PTI and Imran Khan until their long march on Islamabad in 2013, by which time his message to Imran was: we have ‘tamed’ then prime minister Nawaz Sharif (regarding his outreach to Modi and India) and therefore Imran should abandon the long march and planned dharna(sit-in) in Islamabad. Imran refused, citing his loss of face if he backed down then, and despite his repeated calls from the dharnastage for the ‘third umpire’ to raise his finger, Imran was disappointed. It took a different ‘third umpire’ later to fulfil Imran’s wish. The rest, as they say, is history.

It cannot be denied that the PTI’s constant bombardment over the years of the theme of the corruption of the previous ruling parties, the PML-N and the PPP, has found resonance in large sections of the public, particularly the urban middle class. However, the partisan witch-hunt of these two parties’ leadership by the National Accountability Bureau (NAB) has weakened the argument. In any case, corruption is endemic to our system, from top to bottom. It cannot be eliminated by the strategy in vogue at present. What it can do and arguably has achieved is to bring the credibility, and therefore the longevity, of the present dispensation into question as it stands on shaky moral and political ground.

There appears no alternative out of the mess created by the establishment (once again) except genuine free and fair fresh elections. These will have credibility but most likely bring the same opposition faces into power again. Only allowing the system to run as it should can hold out any hope over time of corrupt elements in the political class (including the PTI) being weeded out and replaced by better people. ‘Short cuts’ of the type the establishment trots out again and again despite experience proving their inefficacy, will not work.

 

 

 

 

 

 

rashed.rahman1@gmail.com

rashed-rahman.blogspot.com

The December 2020 issue of Pakistan Monthly Review is out

 The December 2020 issue of Pakistan Monthly Review is out. Link: pakistanmonthlyreview.com

Contents:

1. From the Editor: Left Unity, PDM's positives and limitations, PTI's anti-worker policies.

2. Prof Dr Maqsudul Hasan Nuri: Cuban-Soviet Relations in Africa (1975-1980): 'Partner-Proxy' Relations: a Theoretical Debate – I.

3. Book Review: Review by Prof Charles Lindholm of Dr Nosheen Ali's Delusional States: Feeling Rule and Development in Pakistan's Northern Frontier.

4. Joint Declaration of the Left.

Rashed Rahman

Editor, Pakistan Monthly Review

Director, Research and Publication Centre

Business Recorder Editorial December 5, 2020

Pakistan-China relationship

 

To say that the Pakistan-China relationship is a close, deep and continuing one would be to state what has been obvious for many years. Chinese Defence Minister General Wei Fenghe’s three-day visit therefore was expected to help deepen our mutual relations even further, and so it has proved. General Wei had embarked on an outreach mission in the region in the light of China’s currently tense relations with India pertaining to the two countries’ long-standing border disputes. General Wei travelled to Pakistan after visiting Nepal, a South Asian country sandwiched between China and India. While in Islamabad, General Wei interacted with the civilian and military leadership, and the outcome was a consensus on deeper cooperation for regional peace and stability, while taking on board India’s apparent hegemonic designs in the region. The military leadership signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) with the distinguished guest’s delegation for enhanced defence cooperation. The importance of this step can be understood if the drying up if not dried up traditional source of defence procurement and aid, i.e. the US-led west, is taken into account. Given the efforts to wind down if not resolve the conflict in Afghanistan, in which the US in particular has begun to appreciate Pakistan’s role in the peace initiative, Pakistan no longer enjoys the same pre-eminence as before in Washington’s eyes. China can fill this emerging gap in significant ways. Prime Minister (PM) Imran Khan during his meeting with General Wei laid stress on the threat to regional peace and stability posed by India’s illegal annexation of Indian Held Kashmir (IHK) on August 5, 2019. He also dilated on the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party’s (BJP’s) actions and blatant discrimination against religious minorities in India, particularly Muslims, and curbs on freedoms that threatened to spill over into tensions regionally. The PM argued for deepening bilateral strategic communication and coordination between Pakistan and China as two closely knit neighbours. President Arif Alvi too expressed similar sentiments during his interaction with the distinguished guest.

China has stood like an iron friend by Pakistan’s side through thick and thin for many years. The mutual trust and friendship between the two neighbours has only deepened over time. Both countries support each other’s concerns and stances on every international forum. So far, so good. But there are also real or potential differences that need to be addressed in order to avoid misunderstandings. China’s Road and Belt Initiative, of which the China Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) is a part, has much promise and mutual benefit if properly framed and handled. China’s need is to provide an outlet to the sea that is one-third of the distance to its eastern seaboard for its troubled western province of Xinjiang. This is a Muslim-majority province that could not escape the growth of Islamic fundamentalist movements that had the region in their grip as a corollary of the Afghan wars. The Chinese have been very patient with us over the presence in erstwhile FATA of Uighur Islamic fundamentalist elements, who were only eliminated from our soil during the military operations against our Taliban. The Chinese have been attempting over the years to wean us off our obsession with Islamic fundamentalist groups as extensions of state power and policy in the region, an obsession that has yielded us more costs than benefit. CPEC has often been dubbed a ‘game changer’, but there are some serious issues with the project that need addressing. First and foremost, CPEC represented a golden opportunity to help the backward regions of Pakistan to catch up with its developed parts through the aegis of the western route passing through relatively underdeveloped Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and Balochistan. With hindsight, it could be argued that the western route has yet to attract equal attention as the eastern one, which passes through Punjab and Sindh, already relatively better developed. More attention therefore needs to be paid to the western route, including Special Economic Zones in which Pakistani businesses too are accommodated along with Chinese ones. Gwadar Port promises much, but local grievances regarding their share of the benefits of this development need attention. Similarly, given the simmering sub-nationalist insurgency in Balochistan, the benefits of CPEC, should they begin to appear and be enjoyed by the local populations along the route, could undercut the insurgents’ critique with arms of what they dub as another plan to exploit their land and resources for others or the state. Inclusive development of CPEC could go a long way towards mitigating resentment and grievances, deliver tangible benefits to the populace along the route, and help dull the edges of armed confrontation in Balochistan.

Business Recorder Editorial December 3, 2020

Trump’s follies

 

Outgoing US President Donald Trump’s four-year incumbency has yielded any number of foolish policies and practices that, had their impact on the US itself as well as the world not been so grave, would probably have provided a great deal of merriment. But even in this surfeit of riches, some things stand out from amongst the crowd. Trump’s handling of the Covid-19 crisis has been nothing short of criminally negligent. Initially, he poohed poohed the warnings of the pandemic’s threat to life, adventurously went about without a mask even to election rallies, and may well have continued in this vein had he not contracted coronavirus himself. No steps were taken to provide public health in a country that only provides private expensive medical treatment, which left most of the poor and not so well off to fend for themselves. Little surprise then that the US has competed with countries in Europe and elsewhere for the top slot of cases and deaths. The virus has so far killed over 265,000 Americans, and the current ongoing deadly surge has produced over 100,000 new cases per day, leading to record-high hospitalisations (of those who can afford them). As if all this were not enough, Trump appointed Scott Atlas his pandemic special adviser when the latter was a neuroradiologist with no expertise in infectious diseases or epidemiology. Sighs of relief are audible all round after Atlas shrugged off his assignment after four months marked by controversy. During his short tenure, Atlas’ contributions to the drive against the coronavirus bordered on the hilarious, giving even his boss, Trump, a run for his money. Atlas downplayed the coronavirus threat, attacked science-based public health measures, and clashed repeatedly with other members of the pandemic task force. It is a mystery what qualifications or expertise Atlas had that persuaded Trump to put him in charge of one of the US’s (and the world’s) deadliest pandemic outbreaks. Scott Atlas is a fellow at Stanford University’s rightwing Hoover Institution, where he works on healthcare policy. During his tenure as special assistant, he attacked mask wearing, stay-at-home orders and social distancing, i.e. all the standard operating procedures (SOPs) instituted round the world to limit the spread of the virus, promoting instead the scientifically unproven notion of ‘herd immunity’ for the US. Had his advice been followed, it would probably have led to millions of deaths. He was rightly repeatedly rebuked by public health and infectious diseases experts. Not only that, he called on Michigan residents to ‘rise up’ against restrictions imposed by Governor Gretchen Whitmer, who became the target of a kidnapping plot, probably inspired by Scott Atlas’ call. This incident led to calls for his firing. Even Stanford University and its faculty senate distanced themselves from their own faculty member Scott Atlas’ ridiculous shenanigans.

Scott Atlas’ resignation comes amidst a deadly surge in cases in the US and other parts of the world. The troubling aspect of the situation in the US is that despite his foolish handling of the pandemic and the damage it has inflicted on American lives, jobs and the economy, 70 million plus Americans were still persuaded to vote for Trump. This is an indicator of how polarised and divided the US is today. Those who voted for Trump have blinkers on regarding his mistakes and downright damaging policies. They may even be the harbingers of a growing neo-fascist right wing trend in the US’s polity. Trump has not been loath even in his last days in office to wreak revenge by firing those members of his administration who may have dared to differ with him or sully the traditions of losing gracefully by kicking up a fuss about alleged rigging and mounting legal challenges that have more or less sunk without a trace. Incoming President Joe Biden will have his work cut out for him in terms of attempting to re-establish the US’s global standing. Pakistan has to prepare itself for the new administration in Washington as well as understand that kowtowing to every wish of the US in the past, e.g. the Afghan wars, has damaged our own interests. The relationship with the US going forward should be based only on what is good for Pakistan, without grandiose ambitions or unattainable goals that turned out to be mere chimeras in the past.

Business Recorder Column December 1, 2020

PTI’s anti-worker policies

 

Rashed Rahman

 

Nothing has exposed the ruling Pakistan Tehreek-i-Insaaf’s (PTI’s) anti-worker policies than the surprise announcement on November 28, 2020 that over 4,500 employees of Pakistan Steel Mills (PSM) were being terminated with severance pay of an average Rs 2.3 million each. If this was not bad enough in the midst of the pandemic and its effects on the economy, including unemployment, Federal Minister for Industries and Production Hammad Azhar virtually drove the last nail in the coffin of PSM by announcing that 95 percent of its workforce was to be laid off. This statement lends weight to the apprehension of workers’ union leaders and other activists that the real plan is to close down PSM for good (it has already been closed since 2015) and divert its 1,900 acres of land to other uses such as real estate development. Hammad Azhar has already indicated that 1,300 of these 1,900 acres would be leased out (to whom, for what, are still to be revealed).

PSM’s sorry history is a lesson in our ability to turn a good thing into bad ‘effortlessly’. PSM was set up under Zulfikar Ali Bhutto’s government in the 1970s. Experts say the contention between the US and the former USSR to set up the mill, mooted as a plan in 1958, finally fell into the Soviet Union’s lap since Washington and Islamabad’s chequered history and many differences found sharp focus when Bhutto came to power after the 1971 East Pakistan debacle. The Soviet plan consisted of a phase-wise mills setting up, starting with an initial production capacity of 1.1 million tons of steel. During subsequent phases, training of personnel by the Soviets would go hand in hand with further investment in order to reach at least the minimal feasible production capacity of three million tons. It may be added that at 1.1 million tons, not even the fixed costs of the plant could be met. Industry wisdom also dictated a minimum capacity of three million tons to break even and further expansion to become profitable.

The later expansion phases never happened, being overtaken by political developments inside Pakistan, including Bhutto’s incremental resiling from even his proclaimed Islamic socialism during his tenure, the brutally repressed opposition’s agitation against the 1977 rigged general elections, and the simmering nationalist insurgency in Balochistan. Subsequent governments were either ignorant of, or chose to turn a blind eye to the original plan. Some, like General Ziaul Haq’s dictatorship, considered even Bhutto’s pseudo-socialism anathema, and Soviet friendship a difficult bone to swallow. Others, like Nawaz Sharif’s three stints in power, wanted no truck with competition from PSM for their recently restored (by Zia) Ittefaq Foundries. Nawaz even destroyed the flourishing shipbreaking industry in Gaddani to leave the field clear for Ittefaq and other private sector steel firms. Needless to say, the phased original Soviet plan went abegging, leaving subsequent Pakistani PSM managements with the unenviable task of making a steel mill profitable that inherently fell short of even break even production capacity. Over the years, this production capacity did increase, leading for some years to PSM entering into the black in profitability, but this brief respite did not last.

Overemployment for political reasons has been the bane not only of PSM, but most state-owned enterprises (SOEs) in our history. PSM attracted the tender attentions in this respect of both the Pakistan People’s Party (PPP) and the Muttahida Qaumi Movement (MQM). But the greater blame for giving in to such exorbitant job distribution demands falls on PSM’s management that acquiesced in such unsustainable foolishness.

Ironically, it was the PPP government of 2008-13 under former president Asif Zardari that oversaw mismanagement in PSM to the extent that before they left office, the already inadequate production capacity (as explained above) of PSM was reduced to 40 percent. The remaining funereal rites of PSM were enacted by the following Pakistan Muslim League-N (PML-N) government of Nawaz Sharif by cutting its production to 20 percent, then six percent, and then finally shutting it down in 2015. Now PTI seems bent upon turning this industrial asset into probable real estate ventures for the rich, on the lines of its Ravi Riverfront project in Lahore and its drooling over Sindh and Balochistan’s islands.

Whatever his other flaws, Bhutto must be credited with digesting and then attempting late Indian Prime Minister (PM) Jawaharlal Nehru’s vision for his own country’s development. Despite steel giants like the Tatas being in the field, Nehru realized that without basic heavy industry, India could not achieve a modern, thriving economy. He therefore set up heavy steel and engineering industries in the public sector since the private sector was by and large shy of such long gestation, low return projects. Derided later for the three percent so-called ‘Hindu rate of growth’, Nehru was later vindicated by India being able to make faster industrial and economic progress on the foundations of the heavy industry base inherited from Nehru.

Bhutto too tried to fill the gap in Pakistan’s industrial development by overseeing the Pak-Soviet PSM plan, setting up heavy engineering industry in the public sector, nationalising in the process the commanding heights of the economy, including banking and insurance. However, the flaw in Bhutto’s planning was the failure to address the lack of professional management cadre to run the SOEs, which under the bureaucracy to which they were transferred, went steadily south. This, by the way, and for the information of PM Imran Khan, had less to do with ‘socialism’, to which he ascribes our subsequent economic ills, and more to do with bureaucratisation under the misleading label of Islamic socialism. If Bhutto can be faulted, it is not for attempting leftist reforms in the economy, but for failure to consistently and incrementally transform Pakistan’s economy in the direction of true socialism. Even his land reform was subverted and reversed by the mid-1970s by the influx of large landowners into the PPP.

The model of economic development that Pakistan has more or less consistently been following over the years is wholly dependent on loans and aid, both bilateral and from international institutional lenders. This has translated in practice into Pakistan benefitting when its ‘nuisance’ value or willingness to become part of US-led western imperialism’s strategic plans for our region (e.g. the Afghan wars) are on offer. When the ‘nuisance’ value changes into a real nuisance (i.e. our acquisition of nuclear weapons) or Pakistan drifts away from western imperialism’s desires (and into the ‘alternative’ embrace of, for example, China), this model runs into trouble. In any case, it has inherent to it a classic debt trap.

The working class is being forced to stir in the face of retrenchments (like in PSM), unemployment, inflation and the misery of being unable to feed families two square meals a day. Weakened by the assault since the 1970s on its unions and thereby ability to resist injustice and exploitation, the working class is nevertheless rising again in the face of unacceptable hardship. The PTI government’s exposure of its anti-worker stance and policies promises another front against this government, one that touches the hearts of the poor, unlike the Pakistan Democratic Movement’s (PDM’s) limitation to the fight for a formal parliamentary democracy without any mention of even scraps from the table for the poor.

 

 

 

 

rashed.rahman1@gmail.com

rashed-rahman.blogspot.com

Business Recorder Editorial November 24, 2020

Afghanistan: peace in sight?

 

Prime Minister (PM) Imran Khan paid a daylong visit to Kabul on November 19, 2020, during which he reiterated Pakistan’s desire to see peace return to Afghanistan, ravaged by decades of war and internal strife. The PM underlined the benefits for our tribal areas of a possible downturn in violence in our neighbouring country. Peace, he said, would allow connectivity and enhanced trade, leading to prosperity on both sides of our common border. While the PM offered assurances to the Afghan leadership of Pakistan’s readiness to help in reducing the level of violence, it must be noted that despite the US-Taliban agreement in Doha in January 2020, the intra-Afghan dialogue remained stalled since its inception in September 2020 on issues such as the agenda for talks, interpretation of Islam, women’s rights and sundry other contentious issues. A ray of hope is engendered by the report that these issues have now been sorted out by both sides and the dialogue will hopefully now take off. However, despite these encouraging developments on the negotiations front, the violence has not decreased but rather increased since the US-Taliban Doha agreement in January 2020. Analysts saw this as a Taliban strategy to strengthen their hand at the negotiating table. They also pointed to the encouragement offered to the Taliban by outgoing US President Donald Trump in announcing a further drawdown of US troops from their present strength of 4,500 to 2,500 by January 2021, when Trump is scheduled to step down. Although his successor, Joe Biden, is also in favour of a US withdrawal, he seems more mindful of the criticism of the US establishment that a hasty withdrawal could unleash greater chaos, as happened in the aftermath of the Soviet withdrawal in 1989. The likelihood therefore of the new Biden administration making haste more slowly in this regard is high.

The Pakistan-Afghanistan bilateral relationship has hitherto been seen almost exclusively through the prism of conflict. If things can now be turned round towards peace and stability, there is every reason to hope for better relations. While every peace process has its share of spoilers, in this case al Qaeda and Islamic State amongst others, so long as the main protagonists, the Afghan government and the Taliban and their respective backers remain on the path of a negotiated political solution, the hope for drawing a curtain on one of the longest running wars in modern history could become a reality. PM Imran Khan’s maiden visit seems to have been marked by cordiality, a sea change from the history of strained relations between the two neighbours. Channels of interaction must be kept open for this happy outcome to be achieved. It is therefore a matter of satisfaction that Afghan President Ashraf Ghani has accepted PM Imran Khan's invitation to visit Pakistan in the first quarter of 2021. Pakistan, despite being in economic difficulties itself, has, according to President Arif Alvi, set aside $ one billion to help the reconstruction and rehabilitation of Afghanistan and the post-peace return of the remaining Afghan refugees on our soil. While these portents seem good, experience shows that the long standing Afghan quagmire often proves the old adage about many a slip between cup and lip. Nevertheless, since all stakeholders seem agreed on peace through negotiations as the way forward, all parties must back their verbal commitment with practical efforts to make sure one of the last hurdles, the intra-Afghan talks, produce a settlement acceptable to both sides in the interests of the long suffering Afghan people, the region, and the world.

Business Recorder Editorial written November 17, 2020, not published because of being overtaken by events

TLP protest

 

The Tehreek-i-Labbaik Pakistan (TLP) protest against France’s insistence on the display of caricatures/cartoons of Prophet Mohammad (PBUH) has yielded a rich crop of some 250-300 people injured amongst the protestors and law enforcement agencies (LEAs) since the night of November 15, 2020 in Rawalpindi and Islamabad. Initially prohibited by the authorities, the TLP protest march from Liaquat Bagh to the Faizabad interchange mobilised some 3,000-5,000 plus militants, against whom about 5,000 police and paramilitary forces were arrayed. It now seems the LEAs underestimated the capabilities of the TLP cadre. Pre-emptive arrests of TLP workers all over Punjab (some 400 in Rawalpindi alone) failed to stop the march, as did the barricades and deployment of the LEAs on the route and at Faizabad. When even water cannon failed to quell the protest, reports speak of an operation planned against the sit-in at Faizabad, but this was apparently halted on the orders of Prime Minister (PM) Imran Khan, who ordered a peaceful resolution through talks. The outcome of these talks is a handwritten agreement bearing the signatures from the government side of Federal Minister for Religious Affairs Pir Noorul Qadri, Interior Minister Ijaz Shah and the Deputy Commissioner Islamabad. The TLP claims on the basis of this document that the government has accepted all four of its demands. These include the government asking parliament for a decision within three months to expel the French ambassador, not appoint any ambassador to France, a boycott of all French goods and the release of all the arrested TLP workers. No case will be filed against the TLP leaders and workers even after (and whenever) it calls off its sit-in (which it has yet to do). Meanwhile Faizabad remains occupied by the protesters’ sit-in, along with the occupation/blockage of roads connecting to or emanating from Faizabad. As to the agreement, there is still no official confirmation of its contents or what the TLP claims has been guaranteed to it post-sit-in. The only response from the authorities so far is an interior ministry notification regarding the immediate release of all TLP workers arrested all over Punjab in the last few days. TLP has so far not concurred with the government’s version that the protest has been called off after prolonged negotiations. TLP says its final decision will only be after a meeting with its leadership. TLP supremo Khadim Hussain Rizvi is expected to make any announcement regarding the end of the protest from on top of the stage. Needless to say, the sooner this transpires, the better for the citizens of the twin cities whose lives, commutes and business have been badly disrupted since the protest began on November 15, 2020.

It is disconcerting the amount of street power religious extremists have accumulated in Pakistan over the years. Certainly enough to hold the state hostage when this street muscle is deployed, as happened in the Lal Masjid episode, the TLP’s 2017 protest (dispersed with the help of public distribution of cash to the protesters to persuade them to go home), and now this one. One can sympathise with the PM’s probable concern that in the charged emotional climate of protest against the Prophet’s (PBUH) insult, softly, softly may well be the better option than an all-out operation that potentially could have led to bloodshed. Of course we also have the pig-headed stubbornness of French President Macron in persisting with the insult in the name of free speech, when all sensible people would abide by the old dictum: your freedom ends where my nose begins. To add injury to insult, Macron also insists on ‘moulding’ all immigrants and non-white people in his country into some pre-conceived notion of what it means to be French. This attitude is likely not only to prove more divisive than ever, it smacks of a desire for uniformity irrespective of the diversity of French society today. Surely this ‘imposition’ runs counter to the idea of a tolerant, democratic society. Then Macron has a view of Islam that conflates the attitudes of an extremist Muslim minority to that of Muslims entire, when the overwhelming majority of Muslims, including those who live in France, are moderate, sensible and law abiding citizens. The other side of the coin of course is our minority religious extremists such as the TLP holding state and society hostage to their blinkered vision. While this tail has enough mischief capacity to wag the dog, better sense needs to prevail both in the west, especially France, as well as in the Muslim world and community to approach the sensitive issue of the Prophet’s (PBUH) respect sensitively and with due moderation on all sides.

The November 2020 issue of Pakistan Monthly Review is out. Link: pakistanmonthlyreview.com

Contents: 

1. From the Editor: PDM and the Left.

2. Professor Dr Maqsudul Hasan Nuri: International Relations: Revisiting the Conventional 'Realism' Paradigm – II.

3. Book Review: Dr Nichola Khan: Dr Steve Lyon: Political Kinship in Pakistan (Lexington Books, 2019).

Rashed Rahman

Editor, Pakistan Monthly Review

Director, Research and Publication Centre  

Business Recorder Editorial November 20, 2020

Public rallies ban

 

As could be expected, the opposition Pakistan Democratic Movement (PDM) has rejected the government’s desire to ban all public rallies because of the Covid-19 second wave threat. This response, as well as the PDM’s rejection of any talks with the government, including on Prime Minister Imran Khan’s floating the idea of electoral reforms requiring a constitutional amendment in a televised address on November 17, 2020, reflects the state of extreme polarisation in the country. If the opposition had complaints against the Pakistan Tehreek-i-Insaaf (PTI) government over the last two years, including allegations of the PTI having been brought to power through rigging the 2018 general elections, the recent Gilgit-Baltistan Legislative Assembly elections, seen as a rerun of the 2018 general elections by the PDM and analysts, have further soured the political atmosphere. Inevitably, this has led to a hardening of positions. The PDM’s Karachi rally did not seem to be followed by any significant reports of a Covid-19 increase, but it has been argued that its Gujranwala and Quetta rallies did. This different outcome may, in some observers’ opinion, be the result of the Karachi rally having an overwhelming participation of people brought in from other areas of Sindh and the country as a whole. However, given the complexity and unpredictability of the pandemic, nothing can be said with absolute certainty in this regard. However, there may well be a case for considering the risks attendant on the PDM’s upcoming rallies in Peshawar on November 22, 2020, Multan November 30, 2020, and Lahore December 13, 2020. It goes without saying that given our political traditions and culture, attempting to impose SOPs on such rallies to guard against the spread of Covid-19 is a virtual impossibility. The PDM’s rejection of the ban on rallies per se shows the trust gulf that exists between the two sides of the political divide. Given this situation, it came as no surprise to hear Punjab Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N) president Rana Sanaullah, Ahsan Iqbal and other opposition leaders dismiss the ban as the government’s panicked response to the actual or hoped for momentum the PDM rallies may be accumulating incrementally.

While blame for the existing polarised political situation may be shared by both sides, greater responsibility for triggering it and also for defusing it lies on the government's shoulders. This is because the government has to govern, the opposition only has to oppose. In a parliamentary democratic system, a one-sided or aggressive approach by the government side cannot help the parliamentary system work. Proof of this can be seen in the present dysfunctional state of parliament. It is the government’s greater need to practice outreach towards the opposition, both outside and inside parliament, but with the latter of greater importance, to allow parliament to achieve some modicum of functionality. Here the role of Speaker comes into play as the guardian of the house and impartial conductor of its proceedings. We may have historically adopted the outward appearance of British parliamentary democracy, but have failed to inculcate its culture. The Speaker is held to the highest standards of fair and impartial running of the house, ensuring due respect and space to the opposition as well as the treasury. Unfortunately, we have adopted quite the opposite practice of the Speaker unabashedly displaying partiality towards the treasury benches inside the house, and (horror of horrors!) pronouncing on political issues outside it. Our current tragedy is that even a national health emergency such as a resurgent Covid-19 second wave is not addressed according to objective scientific and medical findings, being subjected instead to our daily dose of polarised politics instead. The PDM should consider the health risks to its own supporters as well as the country as a whole from continuing their rallies as planned. The government, on the other hand, is expected to show greater maturity in reaching out to, and respectfully dealing with, the opposition if our (admittedly flawed) parliamentary democracy is to have any chance of going forward.

Business Recorder Editorial November 18, 2020

Flawed approach to Balochistan conundrum?

 

Prime Minister (PM) Imran Khan’s visit to Turbat, Balochistan on November 13, 2020 had a familiar ring to it. Dilating on the need for equal development of all federating units for a strong federation, he announced another development package, concentrated this time on southern Balochistan. Familiar, because previous governments too have made soothing noises about dealing with Balochistan’s neglect and its poverty and deprivation as a result. For example, the Pakistan People’s Party (PPP) government 2008-13, when Asif Ali Zardari was President, announced with great fanfare the Aghaaz-e-Haqooq-e-Balochistanpackage. For all intents and purposes, that package sank without a trace when the PPP left office. Similarly, the Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N) government 2013-18, held out the benefits of the China Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) and the development of Gwadar port for the lives of the people of Balochistan, but the latter are still waiting for those ephemeral benefits to bring about any meaningful change in their lives. Farther back in time, the grievances of Balochistan stretch back 73 years to the emergence of Pakistan on the map of the world. During this long period, Balochistan has been dealt with harshly at one end through repression, and subjected to neglect at the other, a combination guaranteed to deepen the anger and alienation of its people. Now PM Imran Khan has traversed a similar path by promising ‘milk and honey’ to the impoverished people of Balochistan through a raft of development measures in infrastructure, education, health, housing, small industry, irrigation, employment, etc. The icing on the cake, according to the PM, is CPEC and Gwadar. It should be noted that the entire package is focused on the nine districts of southern Balochistan. These are almost exclusively Baloch areas. It is also argued that this region is relatively free of sardari(tribal chiefs) control. An emerging middle class in the region informs the package’s thrust to offer internet and modern IT technology to kick-start a hoped for transition into a modern economy. While none of the measures announced can be objected to, there are troubling unanswered questions.

Concentration on southern Balochistan begs the question what is the ‘sin’ of the rest of the Baloch areas of the province for which they are ignored in this package? After all they suffer from the same poverty and deprivation as the south. If tribal chieftainship is considered an obstacle in the rest of the Baloch areas, is it not a fact that they are no longer as isolated as may have been the case in the past? Strictly speaking, what is the ‘sin’ of the non-Baloch areas? The only logical explanation seems to be the security concerns regarding CPEC, emanating from the long running nationalist insurgency. But if that is a consideration, is it not a reality in the rest of the Baloch areas too? Development of the whole of the Baloch areas riven by the insurgency makes sense if their common long-standing grievances and various types of neglect are taken on board. But the elephant in the room is how to deal with the insurgency. Simply labelling it a tool of neighbouring hostile countries closes the door on any possibility of resolution of the conflict. Whether those countries are actually involved or not remains a matter of conjecture if not propaganda in the face of lack of clinching evidence. But even if for the sake of argument this is accepted as a fact, putting out the fire in one’s own house could deprive anyone of attempting to fish in troubled waters. Development could, if sincerely implemented, reduce the alienation of the people, especially the youth who are the main recruiting ground for the insurgents. It could also produce a climate in which the insurgents would have to reconsider their rejection of all but armed struggle. But for that to happen, not only must the latest announced package be implemented and be seen to be producing results, it must also be extended to all the Baloch areas and the rest of the province. The situation underscores the need for opening the door a crack to a negotiated political solution for what is in essence a political problem to be distinguished from terrorism.

Business Recorder Column November 17, 2020

G-B: rerun of 2018 general elections

 

Rashed Rahman

 

The interim, unofficial results of the Gilgit-Baltistan (G-B) election show a disconcerting, familiar pattern. At the time of writing these lines, these results show the Pakistan Tehreek-i-Insaaf (PTI) leading with 10 of the 22 seats being contested out of the 23 seats in the G-B Legislative Assembly. In second place are Independents with seven seats, followed by the Pakistan People’s Party (PPP) with three, the Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N) with two and the Majlis Wahdat-ul-Muslimeen (MWM) with one seat. The Independents and MWM are expected to join hands with the PTI to form the government.

Both the PPP and PML-N have rejected these results, alleging rigging. Disturbing reports, for example of a clash of PTI-PPP workers in Skardu, point towards the polarisation in the country generally and in G-B in particular increasing. This clash, according to the PPP, ensued when the PTI workers attacked the PPP’s office. Earlier, during the election process, the PPP had accused the returning officers in some constituencies of not announcing the results despite the vote counting having been completed. Further, the PPP alleged PTI workers took away the ballot boxes in Ghizer after 11 pm on Sunday night.

Federal ministers on twitter castigated the opposition parties for making rigging allegations even before the polling day on November 15, 2020. Federal Information Minister Shibli Faraz went even further, claiming the opposition’s narrative had been buried in G-B. On the other hand, just before the voting closed, PPP Vice President Sherry Rehman said at a press conference in Gilgit that a number of election observers of the Free and Fair Election Network (FAFEN) had been removed from the polling stations before the counting process started. Further, some voters discovered when they arrived to cast their ballots that their votes had already been cast by postal ballot. No prizes for guessing which side benefited from this mail-in legerdemain. Information Secretary of the PPP’s G-B chapter Sadia Danish, who was herself a candidate in this election, alleged that the polling agents of the PPP’s candidate in Gilgit-1 (GBLA-1) had been made hostage at a polling station in Skarkai. Further, she accused the presiding officer of illegally stamping some ballots. Ms Danish said Form-45 had been received at 62 polling stations in constituency GBLA-1 after 8:00 pm. Whether this was due to the inefficiency of the G-B election commission or something else can only be left to the imagination.

This third election in G-B had assumed unprecedented significance because of the tense political situation in the country as a whole when the opposition’s 11-party Pakistan Democratic Movement (PDM) is in the middle of an anti-government campaign of protest rallies. In this context, any controversy regarding the G-B elections is bound to feed into an escalating conflict between the two sides of the political divide. Even before the polls opened, allegations of horse-trading and pressurisation of the previous ruling party in G-B, the PPP’s local, seasoned leaders to switch sides to the PTI were doing the rounds.

PPP chairman Bilawal Bhutto Zardari has openly accused the PTI and its backers of stealing the G-B election. He has warned the PPP should not be pushed into reacting in extreme manner. Maryam Nawaz too has tried to put balm on the opposition supporters’ wounds by saying they should not be discouraged by the results of this allegedly rigged election. This puts paid to the theories circulating about establishment-engineered splits in the PDM. 

It would be useful to recall that the 2018 elections, about which the opposition had alleged interference and intervention by the military and security forces to bring about a result they desired, had left the PTI just short of a simple majority. The deficit was made up by the usual cast of opportunist parties and politicians always waiting in the wings to answer the establishment’s call. This time in G-B too, it seems the same formula will be applied, with the simple majority deficit of the PTI being made up by the so-called Independents and turncoats who have abandoned their mother parties at the behest of the establishment.

If the 2108 general elections and the just concluded G-B elections are the new rules of the political game set by the establishment, it is debatable whether this can produce an acceptable and stable dispensation anywhere in the country. Nor can the prospects of a genuine democracy emerging at some time be considered bright. If this analysis proves correct, the possibility of an explosion cannot be ruled out. The rules of political contention must be above board, fair, without prejudice or manipulation by the powerful establishment. Anything short of that is a political disaster in the making.

However, for a genuine democratic system to be created, all political forces have to learn the cost of collaboration with the establishment, both to their own credibility as well as something describable as a credible democracy. Only principled opposition to an establishment-created, false political dispensation can take the country forward.

 

rashed.rahman1@gmail.com

rashed-rahman.blogspot.com

Business Recorder Editorial November 14, 2020

Establishment trying to wean PPP away?

 

The court of inquiry ordered by COAS General Qamar Javed Bajwa after a telephone conversation with Pakistan People’s Party (PPP) chairman Bilawal Bhutto Zardari following the so-called ‘Karachi incident’ has found the officers of Inter Services Intelligence (ISI) and the Rangers responsible and ordered their removal. The inquiry stated that despite being experienced officers, they acted ‘overzealously’ in forcing the Inspector General (IG) Police Sindh to file an FIR against Captain (retd) Safdar in the wake of the incident at the Quaid’s Mazar that was seen as disrespectful to the country’s founder. Soon after, Captain (retd) Safdar was arrested at his hotel room where he was staying with his wife, Maryam Nawaz. ISPR stated the removed officers face further departmental proceedings after they had been placed at the disposal of GHQ. In the aftermath of these events, senior police officers in Sindh had gone on leave en masse for the humiliation of their chief. This prompted General Bajwa’s call to Bilawal, who has responded positively to the development, saying the inquiry and action were appropriate and would have the effect of strengthening institutions (instead of the clash embedded in the ‘overzealous’ steps taken). Nawaz Sharif, on the other hand, has rejected the inquiry report, dubbing it a cover-up by making junior officers scapegoats and allowing the real culprits to go scot-free. Interestingly, the police investigation into the FIR registered against Captain (retd) Safdar by one Waqas has been found to be false. Waqas was found not at the Mazar at the time, no threats being hurled could be proved, and he failed to join the investigation. Suspicion fell on the ruling Pakistan Tehreek-i-Insaaf (PTI) when reports revealed Waqas’ connections with the party. In all this, the original complaint of inappropriate behaviour at the Quaid’s Mazar has got lost in the melee. 

The incident and its fallout points to some interesting thoughts and developments. The ‘overzealous’ actions of the officers involved beggar the imagination as being solely their own doing without clearance and instructions from higher up. To that extent, Nawaz Sharif’s criticism may not be without weight. However, it is also an emerging fact that the establishment may now be reconsidering its policy of putting all its eggs in one basket. The ‘outreach’ to the PPP may be a reflection of seeking wider options in case the need arises. The PPP on the other hand has a different take on the situation from the rest of the opposition given its stake in the existing dispensation in the form of the Sindh government. No such consideration limits Nawaz Sharif’s actions as he has little to lose and thinks there is much to be gained by playing aggressively on the front foot. He has not, reportedly, ruled out the option of a meaningful dialogue with the establishment, if Shahid Khaqan Abbasi is to be believed, which points to more possible, even if unlikely for the moment, options for the establishment to keep in its back drawer. Although the Pakistan Democratic Movement (PDM) as a whole has welcomed the inquiry decision, Maulana Fazlur Rehman remains the obdurate fly in the ointment of any dialogue with the establishment given that he has even less to lose than Nawaz Sharif currently. The establishment’s response to the embarrassment caused by its ‘overzealous’ officers seems to have been to defuse and divert the opposition’s anger against it onto the government so that it avoids blame. Whether it has succeeded in this damage control exercise only time will tell, but widespread public opinion seems sceptical of the whole exercise. A dialogue may well be in the interests of a more rational and acceptable way out of the impasse in politics at present, in which Imran Khan and his government may prove the major hurdle, given his proclivity to refuse even ordinary interaction with the opposition. The establishment may simply be hedging its bets in case the present trajectory of the PTI government continues until a point is reached, triggered by the PDM campaign of rallies or some other cause, where a recasting of the game plan becomes an unavoidable necessity. The establishment, military and security agencies could make life easier for themselves and the country by staying away from civilian affairs outside their remit.

Business Recorder Editorial November 13, 2020

Trump’s tricks

 

Outgoing US President Donald Trump refuses to concede defeat despite his rival Joe Biden having clinched enough states to give him a very comfortable majority of the electoral college votes even before the remaining votes are finally counted. Instead, he has embarked on a stubborn strategy of challenging the almost universal conclusion that he has lost. Amongst the actions the seemingly petulant Trump plans are public rallies to support the legal challenges he intends to launch on the basis of unsubstantiated claims that the election was not fair and he has not lost it (at least yet). While going against the traditions of democracy and the US’s culture of losing gracefully, Trump is living up to his reputation of being a mean, petty and revengeful person. It seems he intends to use the time remaining till his final departure on January 20, 2021 to wreak vengeance at home and abroad. Domestically, the first victim of Trump’s belated wrath is Defence Secretary Mark Esper, the fourth defence secretary in Trump’s four year tenure. This action smacks of Trump settling scores within his own administration. Trump and Esper fell out publicly over the former’s desire to use the military against protests launched throughout the country against the police killing of black man George Floyd in Minneapolis and Esper’s stalling on Trump’s desire for a rapid withdrawal of US forces from Afghanistan. Trump named Christopher Miller, Director of the National Counterterrorism Center, as acting secretary of defence, although it is highly unlikely the Senate will confirm him or any other nomination by Trump in his twilight days. Informed US observers have termed Trump’s action ‘childish, reckless’, considering the implications of rendering the defence secretary’s post a lame duck in the middle of global security challenges. Trump has also departed from the tradition of easing the transition of power to the new president. For all intents and purposes, the transition is on hold. Voices of dissent at this churlish behaviour are beginning to be heard from within Trump’s inner circle, including his wife Melania (who reportedly has a keen interest in Trump leaving office soon so that she can divorce him) and his son-in-law Jared Kushner. Many amongst this circle believe Trump’s slipshod legal challenges will peter out without evidence. None, however, believe he will refuse to leave office in January 2021, which could trigger a constitutional crisis. Nevertheless, Trump’s obstructionism in the face of the truth that he has lost and his vengeful parting kicks to former colleagues cannot but leave a bitter taste in their wake.

Internationally, there are reports Trump intends to sabotage Biden’s commitment to re-engagement with Iran and a return to the 2015 nuclear deal by imposing fresh and even more stringent sanctions on Tehran. Biden will have his task cut out for him to reverse Trump’s extremist actions that have damaged the US’s international credibility. Russia and China have adopted a ‘wait and see’ attitude on congratulating Biden on his victory, citing the continuing Trump challenges, legal, political and administrative. Both at home and abroad, Trump seems bent upon setting a new and unprecedented example of a president erecting hurdles for his successor. No wonder the American people and states, friendly and unfriendly, seem to be heaving a deep collective sigh of relief at the departure of Trump. Unfortunately, the news does not seem to have arrived for Trump, or perhaps he thinks playing a ‘spoiler’s’ role at the end will give him the place in history that his four year incumbency certainly will not, except perhaps as a negative footnote.

Business Recorder Column November 10, 2020

The people have spoken

 

Rashed Rahman

 

The nail-biting finish to the incredibly close US presidential election is finally here. Democrat Joe Biden has won, Republican controversial President Donald Trump has lost. The margin of victory so far in the popular vote shows just how close this race has been: Biden 74.6 million to Trump’s 70.4 million votes. However, given the peculiarities and complexities of the US election system, this translates so far into 279-214 electoral college votes for Biden, a clear margin of victory from the 270 required. Once all the votes have been counted and legal challenges met, Biden is widely expected to garner 306 electoral college votes, ironically the same number as Trump in 2016. Accompanying Biden on the stage in his home town in Delaware was running mate Kamala Harris, who becomes the first woman, and that too of colour, to ascend to the Vice Presidency.

While the US media has declared victory for Biden, Trump in his usual arrogant style refuses to concede gracefully as is the tradition, instead going on endlessly about the election being rigged, stolen, not yet over, in the face of the overwhelming facts to the contrary. His legal challenges are being questioned even by some Republicans by now since he has failed to produce even a shred of evidence to justify his outlandish claims.

No one could possibly envy Biden for the tasks and challenges he has inherited in a deeply divided and conflicted US. Biden spoke to this when he vowed to unify the US, turn the page on the era of demonisation Trump unleashed, and reached out in traditional style to Republican supporters not as enemies but fellow Americans. The challenges confronting Biden are headed by a formidable list: Covid, the economy, racial inequality and oppression and climate change. On each of these, Biden will first have to overcome the Trump legacy of domestic mismanagement and divisiveness and international isolationism. Trump’s handling of the pandemic has shot the US into the unenviable position of being one of, if not the deadliest, countries to suffer a tragic loss of life, widespread infection, and its concomitant impact on the economy. Recovery of the latter will dictate reversing the ultra-nationalism embedded in the ‘America first!’ slogan in a globally interconnected economic landscape. That includes toning down the harsh rhetoric against China, the second largest economy in the world after the US. Biden has committed to returning to the Paris accord on climate change that Trump departed.

While the domestic challenges to Biden in a deeply polarised US cannot be underestimated, the world has watched this election with bated breath to see what the result will bring to various parts of the globe and the individual countries within them. Foreign policy, as always, will be the focus of extraordinary interest by US allies and ‘enemies’. First and foremost, given Biden’s commitment to a more rational policy towards Iran rather than the aggressive moves the Trump administration stood out for, the implications for the Saudi-led anti-Iran regional Arab front promise change. Biden in his election campaign had declared he would reassess US ties with Saudi Arabia, centring on the butchery of journalist Jamal Kashoggi in the Saudi Istanbul consulate, ending US support for the Saudi-led Yemen war, and the detention of Saudi women activists. Iran welcomed the chance afforded by Biden’s victory to compensate for past mistakes, without offering a friendly tone.

Biden’s foreign policy, given his long experience in the field as chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and Vice President under Obama, will be characterised by fundamental departures from Trump’s erratic, unpredictable style. This means a return to a more traditional approach that seeks to repair the damage to old alliances such as the trans-Atlantic one and the replacement of Trump’s nationalist isolationism with multilateralism in an effort to restore the US’s badly damaged global leadership role. Reaffirmation of ties with European allies, re-engagement with international institutions and recommitment to NATO are expected.

Biden’s win has set off speculation about the US role in the longest running conflict in the Middle East – the Israeli-Palestinian issue. Since the Palestinians are currently being abandoned by more and more Arab countries in the region, Biden’s victory is being posited as potentially troublesome for Israel and helpful to the beleaguered Palestinians. But this should not fool us into thinking that Washington’s pro-Israel fundamental stance will alter. All it means is that Biden is more likely to engage with the Palestinians estranged from the US and return his country to the previous broker’s role again. The most extreme of Trump’s concessions to Israel such as the West Bank settlements and annexation of the Golan Heights may be revisited, but the Israelis have little to fear and the Palestinians little to cheer in the change in the White House.

Afghan President Ashraf Ghani has appealed to the incoming president to continue support to his government, both military and economic, and calibrate the withdrawal of US troops with progress in the peace negotiations. His nemesis, the Taliban, have declared they expect Biden to adhere to the accord arrived at with his predecessor. It is too early to say what if any change can be expected in this regard.

Pakistan, as usual, pitches high hopes from every new occupant of the White House. However, while Biden may continue to work with Islamabad in the Afghan theatre, the unrealistic hopes of some that the Kashmir conflict will see a more sympathetic treatment seem exaggerated. The US’s commitment to forge an anti-China alliance with India is unlikely to allow too much change in Washington’s policy towards the Kashmir issue. Sadly, that means the suffering Kashmiri people continue to be virtually alone in their struggle for self-determination and against oppression.

Of course all this is preliminary and only when Biden enters office on January 20, 2021 will these foreign policies assume clearer shape. The likelihood is a return to more traditional diplomacy in a sharp turn from Trump’s dramatic unilateral nationalism.

 

 

 

 

 

rashed.rahman1@gmail.com

rashed-rahman.blogspot.com

Business Recorder Editorial November 10, 2020

 Tareen’s return

 

Jahangir Tareen’s return to the country from London after an absence of five months has tickled the speculative nerve of our commentariat. Although Tareen told media on his return that he had been in London for medical treatment, the circumstances surrounding his departure suggest other reasons. Tareen left Pakistan for London soon after the sugar inquiry commission report was made public in June 2020 that revealed the names of different players in the sugar sector, including Jahangir Tareen and Khusro Bakhtiar, who were accused of benefiting from the crisis that ensued because of a shortage brought on, amongst other factors, by the government’s mistake in allowing the export of sugar, a transaction that also helped these sugar barons to benefit from a subsidy on the export price. At the time, the government, and particularly Prime Minister (PM) Imran Khan, came in for a bit of stick from the opposition for allowing a close confidant of the PM to escape. On his return, Tareen denied he had received any ‘NRO’ to allow him to return, claimed he had nothing to hide, his business was clean and transparent and that he had no worries in this regard. However, he kept mum when asked whether he would be joining the Federal Investigation Agency’s (FIA’s) inquiry for which he had been summoned for investigation before his departure. Initially Jahangir Tareen rejected the summons, later he asked for time to respond, and then stated he would appear before the FIA after his return. The FIA had asked for details of Tareen’s assets in Pakistan and abroad, his bank transactions, especially transfer of money abroad (amidst speculations about his declared/undeclared properties in the UK), bank accounts of his family members and employees and sugar-related transactions of his firm JDW. Interestingly, Tareen attempted to put a positive spin on his return by claiming he would continue to help the government in its endeavours to control the sugar shortage and the resultant price hike. He also tweeted that his firm was not part of the petition against the Punjab government notification to start the sugar crushing season from November 10, 2020, and all his mills in Punjab and Sindh would start crushing on that date. The positive note in this message may or may not put to rest the questions unanswered about his and other major sugar barons’ role in the crisis, which has yet to abate. For consumers forced to play exorbitant rates for the everyday sweetener, this may well be salt on their wounds.

The sugar inquiry scandal points to troubling anomalies in the so-called accountability process. As it is, the National Accountability Bureau (NAB) has muddied the water to the extent that the anti-corruption drive so beloved of the Pakistan Tehreek-i-Insaaf (PTI) government has lost a fair bit of credibility as being tilted against, if not a witch-hunt of, the opposition, while treating the PTI leaders caught in the NAB net with kid gloves. Imran Khan himself has recently been acquitted in the parliament attack case because of the prosecution (appointed by the PTI government) stating it did not wish to pursue the case. The foreign funding case of the PTI before the Election Commission of Pakistan does not appear to be going anywhere. Add to this the public perception of Jahangir Tareen being let off the sugar scandal hook, and the suspicion of partisan treatment of those in government (or close to it) and those in the opposition approaches firm conviction. In Jahangir Tareen’s case, when the sugar inquiry report was made public on the instructions of PM Imran Khan, the latter stated before even any investigation that Tareen would be cleared of all the charges against him. Now Tareen’s return has set off speculations regarding some ‘assurance’ received by him that he would not be touched. The underlying reason for the timing of the ‘facilitation’ of Tareen’s return with unknown assurances may be the rifts in the ruling coalition with the smaller partners complaining of neglect and not being taken along by the majority PTI. It may be recalled that a the time of the setting up of the PTI coalition government in 2018, Tareen is credited with herding about 20 MNAs into the PTI corral. Tareen may also be expected to help fund and organise the PTI’s counter-campaign of rallies against the opposition’s onslaught.

Business Recorder Editorial on November 4, 2020, not published

Unprecedentedly divisive US election

 

Voting in the US presidential election has ended, but the final result is still some way off. This is because of the huge number of mail-in votes, early voting, and the different rules in place in various states when to conduct the vote count and issue certified final results. However, risky as predictions are at the time of writing these lines, it seems inescapable that Joe Biden is leading Donald Trump by a margin of between 11 and 50 electoral college votes, with the most optimistic results still leaving Biden short by anything from six to 46 electoral college votes from the winning number 270. Results in some hotly contested swing states are still awaited though, therefore final pronouncement has to wait. This has not stopped Donald Trump, as he had threatened to do before and on election day, from claiming, in various messages, that he had won or that the election was being stolen from him through alleged ‘rigging’. With no credible evidence of any electoral fraud however, Mr Trump’s fulminations sound like the desperate bleatings of a sore loser, thereby living up to his pre-electoral image. Biden on the other hand has sounded mature and statesmanlike in stating that nobody, including Trump, could replace the American people in deciding who won or lost. While advocating patience to allow the complicated and in some instances diverse state-by-state tallying of all votes, in person or mail-in, Mr Biden’s campaign has geared up its legal team to meet Trump’s threat to take the issue of the conduct of the elections to the Supreme Court for adjudication, where the Republican judges’ majority, Trump hopes, will find for his cause. It should be understood, however, that the US Supreme Court cannot be approached directly since it has only appellate jurisdiction. Therefore if the electoral battle lands up in the courts, it will be a relatively lengthy process of county and state courts’ adjudication of any disputes, with appeal ultimately lying to the Supreme Court. Despite the pre-election day polls and now the interim results, the American people may have to wait to discover finally who their president for the next four years is to be.

Fortunately, widespread fears of violence on election day proved unfounded. Peaceful protests and celebratory rallies did punctuate the proceedings soon after results started rolling in, one could say prematurely, but there were few untoward incidents and only a smattering of arrests of participants. An unprecedentedly divided US with a nervous electorate saw a record breaking turnout of some 160 million people. This could be ascribed to the electorate’s perception of this as a make-or-break election as well as to the Democrats urging people to vote, based on the perception that their full electoral strength was not represented in 2016. The Democrats’ simple but effective message was: Donald Trump can only be stopped and removed if their voter showed up on the crucial day. And show up they certainly did. Apart from the swing states still in contention awaiting the final vote tally, there have been few upendings of states’ traditional political leanings towards one or the other of the two contending parties. That still leaves some margin of hope for the Trump camp that when the tally is completed, they may achieve a surprise upset of the trend so far. But, looking at the interim figures for both candidates, this seems increasingly a forlorn hope. This election has been watched with feverish intensity all over the world, an indicator of the power the US still commands in global affairs. In South Asia too, the election has received round-the-clock coverage and commentary. Pakistan shares some anxiety about who the next incumbent of the White House will be, since our vital national interests, domestically, regionally and globally, still rest so much on the relationship with Washington.

Business Recorder Editorial November 8, 2020

Uniformity fetish

 

On November 2, 2020, Prime Minister Imran Khan chaired a meeting on the government’s effort to introduce a uniform education system. He said such a system would end the class-based system as all children would get equal opportunities to excel. While on the face of it this seems like a laudable goal, there are a number of questions left unanswered. First and foremost, despite the federal and provincial governments being seemingly together in this endeavour, the gap between the private schools and state schools and madrassas appears huge. This relates not only to the fee structure, which likely leaves out the poor and even a majority of the lower middle and middle classes from accessing the better standard education private schools offer and in fact consolidates inequality, it is not clear whether all the provinces are fully on board. Since education is a provincial subject (apart from the federal capital), the provinces would have to pass legislation to give legal cover to the changes envisaged. The state education sector has been the victim of neglect for many many years, both in funding and the quality of teachers, and therefore instruction, available there. The madrassas have still to fully prove that they can make a departure from the narrow religious instruction they traditionally impart to move their charges into the 21^stcentury. While some madrassas have embraced general education in recent years, this is certainly not universally the case. The religious clerics who man the platform of madrassa organisations have resisted reform for as long as memory serves. The government intends to introduce the uniform curriculum for primary education in April 2021, middle (grades 6-8) by 2022 and high (grades 9-12) by 2023. The curriculum itself has not been made available publicly to allow experts in the field to examine it critically. One of the issues bedevilling education has been religious instruction, which has failed to make allowance for children of religious minorities. Now the scheme intends such students to be taught separately about their respective religions. Last but by no means least or even an exhaustive inventory of problems, teacher training and quality remains a big hole in the state sector and madrassas, and even the much vaunted private sector may need help in this regard. This is especially critical since Federal Education Minister Shafqat Mehmood briefed the meeting on the values to be imparted to children under the new educational dispensation. These include character building, self-defence, awareness about environmental issues, honesty, truthfulness, tolerance, mutual harmony and democracy. Quite a tall ask from the level of quality available in our current pool of teachers.

What is inexplicable about this whole exercise is the need to reinvent the wheel while worldwide experience can be drawn upon. This experience has by now demonstrated in practice that education till at least the primary level should be imparted using the mother tongue as the medium of instruction. The difference in cognitive advance as a result is undeniable. Children at that stage have little problem learning more than one language. Urdu, the national language and lingua franca, and English can be taught at primary level as subjects so that as children proceed up the education ladder, they do not face difficulty in gaining higher education and becoming citizens of a connected world. Pakistan’s diversity suggests that uniformity should not be made a fetish. The content of the curriculum could, after thorough debate and discussion by all stakeholders, be agreed through consensus. But depriving children of the use of their mother tongue at least until primary level disadvantages them in terms of cognitive advance. It also has the undesirable effect of distancing and alienating children from their linguistic and cultural legacy, not to mention the identity that flows from these. Our failure to recognise the multi-national character of Pakistan has led to tragedy in East Pakistan (amongst other factors) and caused a sense of deprivation in the smaller provinces of today’s Pakistan. Even the majority province of Punjab needs help to recover its virtually lost Punjabi identity. The fear is that the government’s real, unstated desire is to pour all children into an ideological straitjacket that force multiplies the current culture of unquestioning rote learning. A linguistically and culturally diverse education system not only draws on the advantages of initial instruction in the mother tongue, it could in freedom impel a voluntary national identity despite ethnic differences, thereby achieving the cherished goal of national integration in a democratic, not top-down forced manner.