Business Recorder Editorial October 30, 2020

Terrorism spectre raises its ugly head again

 

Terrorism is once again rearing its ugly head. After the bomb blast in Quetta on October 25, 2020, a second terrorist bomb attack has occurred in a mosque in Peshawar where students from a nearby madrassa were attending a class by Sheikh Rahimuddin Haqqani, an Afghan cleric originally from Jalalabad. Interestingly, the security agencies had warned recently of a resurgence of such attacks. However, that was a general warning, not a specific one regarding particular targets. In this latest attack, eight students were killed and around 120 wounded. Haqqani escaped safely by being protected by his young charges. This attack is believed to have been targeting him. In 2016 he escaped a gun attack. The device was planted in a bag and carried a sophisticated timer. This has led security sources to speculate that the bomb, either a military grade explosive or TNT laced with a heavy quantity of pellets, did not carry the signature of the usual suspects, i.e. Tehreek-i-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) or its affiliated groups. Instead, this line of thinking argued, it could be the work of a well trained, organised new group. Only after investigations will it perhaps be possible to ascribe blame, although the TTP has already denied responsibility. However, while this should be taken with a pinch of salt, there are other groups working on an agenda inimical to Pakistan. These include the Islamic State (IS), but one cannot rule out older terrorist groups mutating into new ones. Sheikh Rahimuddin Haqqani has also reportedly been in heated exchanges for the last three weeks with another cleric, during which charges of blasphemy have been hurled by both sides. If there is any connection with the blast in Peshawar, investigations should be able to dig it out. The Khyber Pakhtunkhwa government had reportedly carried out a survey to identify Afghan clerics teaching at madrassas or mosques with a view to their removal, but the effort proved stillborn.

The apparent resurgence of terrorist activities within five years of the massive military operations against terrorists of the TTP and others proves the wisdom of the caution at the time that the hydra-headed monster of terrorism had merely been ‘exported’, not completely scotched, when the terrorists, unable to withstand the military’s pressure, relocated to Afghan soil just across the border. Sleeper cells left behind in Pakistan, infiltration of terrorists from across the border and firing incidents across it had the potential to once again awaken the phenomenon that had made Pakistanis’ life hell in the past. The current spate of terrorist actions confirms the above view. Unfortunately, as is our habit, we get swayed all too quickly at any sign of progress against terrorism, a triumphalism that may be premature and have the added effect of inducing complacency, even if the normal effects of inertia over time do not kick in. The military operations in erstwhile FATA were to have been followed up by intelligence-led counter-terrorism campaigns against these forces according to the National Action Plan. The resurgence of terror attacks suggests this task was not carried out with the efficiency and despatch it required. The National Counter Terrorism Authority was mooted as the apex coordinating institution for this effort, but remains in limbo and for all intents and purposes dead in the water. Military and civilian intelligence agencies nevertheless need to overcome the habitual reluctance of such agencies to share their data or information even with sister organisations and develop a central data base regarding the old and possible new threats from terrorist organisations. This is a task whose urgency can no longer be denied by sticking our collective necks ostrich-like in the sand. The sooner the government and all security agencies buckle down to this imperative the better.

Business Recorder Editorial October 28, 2020

Now Sudan, and next?

 

Sudan’s decision to recognise Israel does not come as a surprise since it was being talked about after the United Arab Emirates (UAE) and Bahrain followed the older Egypt and Jordan example and made ‘peace’ with Israel in September 2020. And if US President Donald Trump’s triumphal statement regarding at least five more Arab states on the verge and many more waiting in the wings is to be taken at face value, it confirms the Arab abandonment of the Palestinian cause and the acceptance of the Zionist entity as an unavoidable fact of life. The prize in this unnamed list of course remains Saudi Arabia, which along with other Gulf Cooperation Council members seems to be testing the waters of Arab and Muslim opinion on these developments before it risks its ‘leadership’ of the Islamic world by bowing to Israeli recognition. Of course there are some obvious and some potential sweeteners for this bevy of Arab countries vying to line up in the ‘stampede’ to recognise Israel. In Sudan’s case, there is the fresh added symbolism of an Arab country that has been at war with Israel in the past. Under Omar al-Bashir, whose regime fell last year in the face of civil unrest, Sudan welcomed al Qaeda, and even before that, smuggled munitions to the Palestinians, especially Hamas, a supply line that earned it Israeli air attacks against supply convoys and a weapons factory in 2009 and 2012. Al Qaeda carried out attacks in Sudan against US citizens and targets, landing Sudan on a terrorist blacklist. Now, as part of the deal brokered by Trump, anxious to add one more diplomatic victory just days before the US presidential elections, Sudan has deposited $ 335 million to compensate survivors and their families for anti-US attacks. This not only paved the way for Khartoum’s prized desire to be removed from the blacklist and the sanctions under it, it also has cleared the path for US and Israeli economic aid and military supplies. Similarly, the UAE can now look forward to the supply of US F-35 stealth fighters, which will be the most advanced in the entire region, after Israel dropped its opposition to the sale following assurances from Washington that Israel’s military capabilities will be upgraded significantly.

The hybrid military-civilian provisional government in Khartoum orchestrated the process of normalisation of relations with Israel in exchange for being taken off the terrorist blacklist (after its purse was lighter by $ 335 million) and receiving economic and military aid for its poverty-ridden people by arranging for Abdel Fattah al-Burhan, the military’s chairman of the ruling sovereign council, to meet Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in Entebbe, Uganda. This kicked off the whole process (at the price of the betrayal of the Palestinians). What a turnaround from the hosting by Khartoum of the Arab League summit soon after the Arab-Israeli war in 1967 that adopted the three No’s: no recognition of Israel, no peace with Israel, no negotiations with Israel. Ironically, the outreach to Israel began even before Bashir’s ouster. In 2016, Sudan’s foreign minister Ibrahim Ghandoor left the door open to the normalisation of relations with Israel if the US lifted the sanctions. In early 2016, Sudan severed relations with Iran, to the satisfaction of its increasingly influential backers the UAE and Saudi Arabia. This move fed into Trump lifting some sanctions, following his predecessor Obama’s example. Sudan’s alleged ‘crimes’ in its Darfur province too were ‘forgiven and forgotten’ as a result. In late 2019, the US and Sudan exchanged ambassadors for the first time in 23 years. These and other steps were the opening acts of this chapter of the ‘Deal of the Century’ being peddled by Trump and his son-in-law Jared Kushner. In essence, this ‘deal’ has abandoned the two-state solution for the Palestinians along 1967 borders according to the UN Security Council resolutions. That means the only possible solution left on the table is a one-state one in which the Palestinians receive equal rights as citizens, with controversial demographic and other considerations. If even that is not forthcoming, a new generation of Palestinians may be persuaded to bypass the restraining influence of the Palestine Liberation Organisation and see a return to armed struggle as their only hope. The betrayal by more and more Arab countries also potentially heralds the anger amongst Palestinians, the Arab and Muslim masses in the region and worldwide exploding into violence.

Business Recorder Column October 27, 2020

 PDM’s Quetta show

 

Rashed Rahman

 

The Pakistan Democratic Movement’s (PDM’s) rally in Quetta was huge, indicating that its narrative has gripped not only its own ranks and cadre, but a wider audience amongst the masses. This development has burst the bounds of the electoral/political base of the parties in the PDM, as the Gujranwala, Karachi, and now Quetta rallies show. The opposition seems to be gaining momentum in its drive against the Pakistan Tehreek-i-Insaaf (PTI) government and its establishment backers. The government on the other hand, is still harping on the same tune, which is rapidly losing its efficacy.

Even before the stage had been set in Ayub Stadium, Quetta, or the first speeches delivered by the PDM leaders, the security establishment had warned of an imminent terrorist threat. The Balochistan government, an ally of the PTI, attempted to ‘persuade’ the PDM to call off its rally because of the danger to their rally’s safety, but the opposition put the shoe on the provincial and federal authorities’ foot by reminding them of their duty to preserve security and ensure law and order.

This exchange sank without a trace very rapidly as the PDM’s preparations for the rally on the ground proceeded calmly, while the opposition leaders began arriving in Quetta on October 24, 2020 in preparation for the next day’s event. As it turned out, the PDM show in Quetta was impressive, not only for the turnout (the stadium was full) but also for the discipline and decorum on display amongst the participants.

As expected, Nawaz Sharif addressed the rally from London, as he had done in Gujranwala, negating the government’s efforts to ascribe his ‘no show’ in Karachi to ‘cold feet’. The simpler, and probably truer explanation was that Nawaz Sharif was ill and therefore could not address the Karachi rally. In what has become his trademark hard-hitting style since Gujranwala, the former prime minister again pulled no punches at pointing accusatory fingers at the top brass of the military for its responsibility for the current situation in the country. Last time round too, Nawaz Sharif’s speaking truth to power (changed by the paper to: “attack on military” inexplicably) evoked cries of ‘Traitor!’ from the government, the oldest, and perhaps rather worn out tactic employed throughout our history at dissenters and critics. Unsurprisingly, this time too the government’s busy but increasingly ineffectual spokesmen reiterated the charge of playing the game of the country’s enemies, which were named as India and Israel. Given that the rally was in Quetta, the issues and problems of Balochistan found prominent space in his (and others’) speech. Amongst these, the long-standing and shameful practice of enforced disappearances, which first reared its ugly head when the fifth nationalist insurgency in Balochistan’s history since Independence erupted in 2002, found pride of place. Nawaz Sharif used the example of the treatment of Maryam Nawaz and her husband Captain (retd) Safdar in Karachi to reiterate his argument regarding the existence of a ‘state above (not within) the state’. He justified his naming of the military top brass as dictated by a desire to differentiate between the armed forces as an institution and individuals in command who had acted unconstitutionally and illegally by allegedly rigging the 2018 elections and imposing a ‘selected’ prime minister and government on the country, a government whose failures over the last two years since it was installed have proved an embarrassment to its establishment backers and, combined with the political momentum shifting towards the PDM, must have caused sleepless nights by now to the architects of our present dispensation.

Maryam Nawaz, as she has skilfully been doing since the PDM got off the ground, won more hearts in her appearance in Quetta. She stated the people of Balochistan were as dear to her as the people of her native Punjab. Earlier, Maryam Nawaz had given a practical demonstration of this sentiment by visiting in solidarity the protest camp of the Baloch students who had marched to Lahore from Multan on foot to demand their educational quota and scholarships in Punjab’s universities be maintained. During her speech she recounted the case of three brothers of a Baloch girl who had been taken away from their home several years ago but whose whereabouts were still not known. The girl’s story brought tears to Maryam’s eyes to add to the flood of tears the families of thousands of the disappeared in Balochistan have shed for their dear ones. Maryam likened the experience of her hotel room door in Karachi being broken down to arrest her husband to the fate that overtook Dr Shazia in Sui in 2006. The doctor was reportedly raped by a military man whom then President Pervez Musharraf declared not guilty even without an investigation. This affront to the honour and dignity of the proud Baloch people triggered a rebellion of the tribes around Sui, amongst whom the Bugtis are the largest and most powerful. Maryam then reminded her audience of Musharraf’s threat to Sardar Akbar Bugti that he would be killed in a way that he wouldn’t even know what hit him. The military dictator carried out his threat and did not even allow Akbar Bugti’s family to conduct his last rites, sparking a wider nationalist insurgency in restive Balochistan that continues to this day. Needless to say, Musharraf has never been brought to justice in this matter, or, as Bilawal Bhutto Zardari reminded us, in Benazir Bhutto’s assassination. Our much vaunted justice system seems unembarrassed by the difference in treatment of Musharraf, who is cooling his heels in Dubai, and Nawaz Sharif, whom the courts and the government are insisting of late must return to face the music irrespective of his health.

The Baloch leaders Akhtar Mengal and Dr Abdul Malik also reminded their audience of the sense of deprivation of rights and cruelty practiced on the Baloch people since 1947. If only the establishment were to listen to the moderate Baloch voices to find a political solution to Balochistan’s problems instead of attempting, as usual, to drive Balochistan into ‘paradise’ at the point of a bayonet, perhaps the actual sentiment for independence for the province would not find an echo (be it light hearted) in Owais Noorani’s speech at the Quetta PDM rally.

What next? More rallies, perhaps (not necessarily in this order) in Lahore, Peshawar, Islamabad. The government is talking tough in the face of the challenge but seems to have exercised (or been asked to exercise) restraint so far. However, if it chooses to trot out some ‘muscle’, the whole situation could turn explosive. For the ‘state above the state’, a poignant and worrying turn.

 

 

 

 

 

rashed.rahman1@gmail.com

rashed-rahman.blogspot.com

Business Recorder Editorial October 25, 2020

As written by me:

Sordid happenings

 

It was perhaps inevitable that as the graph of the Pakistan Democratic Movement’s (PDM’s) campaign of protest against the government heated up, the Pakistan Tehreek-i-Insaaf (PTI) government of Prime Minister (PM) Imran Khan would retaliate in some manner or the other. The PM had himself been issuing ‘blood curdling’ threats at the opposition since the Gujranwala rally on October 16, 2020 addressed by Nawaz Sharif from London. If that show of force rattled the government, the even bigger one in Karachi on October 18, 2020 seems to have raised the ante even higher. One manifestation of this was the entirely unnecessary, sordid manner in which Maryam Nawaz’s husband, Captain (retd) Safdar was arrested from their hotel room after the police broke in in the early hours of October 19, 2020. Officially, the arrest related to the incident inside the Mazar of the Quaid-e-Azam when Maryam, Safdar and their Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N) followers paid it a visit. Even if the argument of the federal government that the arrest was lawful and the charge of violating the sanctity of the Mazar was valid, what was the need to resort to the kind of violent break-in that transpired? Captain (retd) Safdar has been arrested before, quite peacefully since the PML-N (and now the PDM) are not inclined to resist arrest if it comes to that. Even more disturbing is the reportage that speaks of the Sindh government being kept out of the loop and the alleged kidnapping of the IG police and forcing him to sign the arrest order by a Rangers contingent. If true, all the fingers of suspicion pointing at the federal government as being behind this foolish move would appear to be confirmed since the Rangers are a paramilitary force under the Ministry of Interior. If the ‘forced’ arrest through the Sindh police was intended to drive a wedge between the PML-N and the host Pakistan People’s Party (PPP), it had the opposite effect, especially as the Chief Minister Sindh downwards denied any knowledge of these goings on. The bypassing of the chief executive of the province, allegedly through a federal force, is one more unprecedented foolishness of the PTI government. Consider. The charge was brought by a PTI person who is reportedly an absconder in a terrorism case. Captain (retd) Safdar got bail the same day, which reportedly has been extended by an anti-terrorism court till October 23, 2020. PPP’s Chairman Bilawal Bhutto Zardari telephoned Maryam Nawaz to clarify that the Sindh government had nothing to do with this effort. As these lines were being written, Chief Minister Sindh Murad Ali Shah was expected to hold a press conference in which these murky goings on would perhaps have some light shone on them.

The arrest in this manner of Captain (retd) Safdar just hours after the PDM rally in Bagh-i-Jinnah does not appear to be a coincidence. In fact it smacks of a double strike: pressure on and harassment of Maryam Nawaz, and attempted creation of misunderstandings between the two PDM allies, the PML-N and the PPP. Neither seems to have succeeded, considering Maryam Nawaz’s defiant tone after the arrest, the bail granted to Safdar, and the coming together of the PML-N, PPP and Maulana Fazlur Rehman in seeing this as a crude and despicable action by the PTI federal government. If anything, the reaction to these events has done more damage to the PTI government than anyone else. One, the FIR in question was filed by a dubious PTI supporter. Two, even if some transgression at the Quaid’s Mazar took place, there seems no earthly reason to go so far as to indulge in the alleged kidnapping of the IG police and forcibly obtaining his signature on the arrest warrant. The reported involvement and central role of the Rangers puts the force and its Islamabad bosses in a very poor light. All this points to signs that the PTI government is panicking at the momentum the PDM seems to be acquiring after the Gujranwala and Karachi rallies. The Sindh government has announced an inquiry into the affair, which may prove even more embarrassing for the PTI government. That government has done its case no good, arguably having demolished its own narrative by resort to such obnoxious moves. 

As published by the paper (a consequence of the Editor falling ill):

Sordid happenings

 

First things first. The Pakistan Democratic Movement (PDM) will be holding the third rally of its ongoing anti-government campaign at Quetta, the capital of Balochistan, today. It was perhaps inevitable that as the graph of the PDM’s campaign of protest against the government heated up, the Pakistan Tehreek-i-Insaaf (PTI) government of Prime Minister (PM) Imran Khan would retaliate in some manner or the other. The PM had himself been issuing ‘blood curdling’ threats at the opposition since the Gujranwala rally on October 16, 2020 addressed by Nawaz Sharif from London. If that show of force rattled the government, the even bigger one in Karachi on October 18, 2020 seems to have raised the ante even higher. The controversy surrounding the arrest of Maryam Nawaz’s husband retired Captain Mohammad Safdar in his hotel room has certainly stepped up pressure on a seemingly beleaguered PTI government. The arrest in this manner of Captain (retd) Safdar just hours after the PDM rally in Bagh-i-Jinnah does not appear to be a coincidence. In fact it smacks of a double strike: pressure on and harassment of Maryam Nawaz, and attempted creation of misunderstandings between the two PDM allies, the PML-N and the PPP. Neither seems to have succeeded, considering Maryam Nawaz’s defiant tone after the arrest, the bail granted to Safdar, and the coming together of the PML-N, PPP and Maulana Fazlur Rehman in seeing this as a crude and despicable action by the PTI federal government. If anything, the reaction to these events has done more damage to the PTI government than anyone else.

Business Recorder Column October 20, 2020

AprèsGujranwala, Karachi

 

Rashed Rahman

 

After the show of force by the 11-party Pakistan Democratic Movement (PDM) in Gujranwala and Karachi, what the near future holds for the country is likely to become a topic of hot speculation. Considering the size of Gujranwala city, the PDM show made up in spirit and enthusiasm for the less than 100,000 participants some anticipated. This was made possible by the contribution of the three main actors in PDM. Punjab retaining its reputation as a Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N) stronghold, saw the party mobilising at reasonable strength for the Gujranwala rally, with Nawaz Sharif’s political heir-apparent, his daughter Maryam Nawaz, adding charisma and glamour in equal measure to the proceedings. The Pakistan People’s Party (PPP) had its young chairperson Bilawal Bhutto Zardari leading the charge from PPP Punjab Secretary Kaira’s home constituency Lalamusa down the historic GT Road to Gujranwala. Maulana Fazlur Rehman’s Jamiat-i-Ulema-i-Islam-Fazl (JUI-F) too fielded its relatively sombre cadre in good numbers.

In the case of Maryam Nawaz and Bilawal Bhutto Zardari playing a leading role, the dynastic transition to the next generation appears all but complete. PML-N’s ‘hosting’ Bilawal in Gujranwala was reciprocated by the PPP’s enthusiastic welcome to Maryam Nawaz in Karachi. Perhaps the transition to the younger generation of leadership of these two major parties will also bury the track record of both cooperation and backstabbing they have displayed since the 1980s, to their own mutual disadvantage.

The Karachi rally was obviously bigger than Gujranwala, but this was to be expected. Karachi’s size, the mobilisation of the PPP’s jiyalasupport base throughout Sindh, where it is in office, and the coinciding of the PDM rally with the PPP’s commemoration of the Karsaaz attacks on Benazir Bhutto’s cavalcade on October 18, 2007 on her return from exile ensured both the enthusiasm and turnout would be huge.

As for the narratives of the two sides of this latest, but of familiar pattern from the past, confrontation, no surprises there. The PDM regularly castigates the incumbent Pakistan Tehreek-i-Insaaf (PTI) government of Imran Khan as ‘selected’ (through rigging the 2018 general elections) and the civilian window dressing for actual control by the establishment. It also points to the obvious failure in governance and managing the country’s affairs by this two-year-old regime foisted undemocratically on the people. For good measure, of late, amongst the actual or alleged failures in foreign policy, the PDM has added the alleged ‘sellout’ of the Kashmir cause by Imran Khan.

As for the government, it too relies on predictable noise about how the PDM’s agenda is Indian-inspired. This ‘patriot’ card has been the stock-in-trade of successive governments, military and civilian, to lump all critics and dissidents in the catchall anti-state basket. Frankly, the currency of this tired old gambit is by now in serious peril. Whereas the government has not been able to add to, or move on from, its NRO rhetoric, its narrative is sounding limp and ineffective by now, for overuse if for no other reason. On the other hand, its silence on substantive issues such as the economy, inflation (particularly food), unemployment and the growing mass sentiment of disappointment and disillusionment with the government is not helped by constant reiteration of the blame being placed on the previous governments’ doorstep. After all, governments are expected to tackle even the most difficult problems inherited from the past. Failure to do so cannot be papered over by the constant harping on the responsibility of past governments for the mess the country finds itself in. As speakers at the Karachi PDM rally reminded us, Imran Khan in his election pledges had promised 10 million jobs and five million low cost houses to ease the people’s woes. Instead, increasing joblessness and more concentration on showpiece real estate development projects like the Ravi River Urban Development project or the controversial Sindh and Balochistan islands takeover for real estate and tourist development smack of favouring the rich (local and expatriate) without a thought for the struggling poor or middle class.

Government’s economic management of industry and agriculture, buffeted no doubt by the Covid pandemic, appears to be at sea with little or no policy perspective in view. Admittedly, agriculture has suffered neglect for long, with little in the way of prioritising crops and their patterns, tackling water scarcity and organising research to inculcate modern agricultural practices. The sugar mafia, which includes worthies from both sides of the political divide, seems untouchable despite one of the biggest scandals surrounding the legerdemain of and sheer robbery committed by the sugar barons. Wheat shortages have pushed the price of the people’s staple, flour, beyond many sections’ reach. Governments in our past have been toppled for far less. This Imran Khan government owes it to its powerful backers for still being in the governing seat. But reminding people of this day in and day out is by now producing diminishing political returns, proving a source of embarrassment for the establishment, and helping hollow out the credibility of Imran Khan’s government.

If the PDM momentum of Gujranwala and Karachi continues or even gains in velocity and mass, what are the portents for the future? From the point of view of the interests of the country, a fresh, genuinely free and fair election might defuse the confrontation. This could be called by Imran Khan or dictated by an establishment beginning to realise its ‘experiment’ has failed spectacularly. Otherwise, if the momentum simply grows from rally to rally without anything except vengeful rhetoric emanating from the prime minister, your guess is as good as mine. But that open-ended uncertainty certainly cannot go on forever. If not defused by the announcement of a fresh, free and fair election, the confrontation could take ugly, perhaps even violent form. Food for thought for those war-gaming the next move.

 

 

 

 

 

rashed.rahman1@gmail.com

rashed-rahman.blogspot.com

Business Recorder Editorial October 16, 2020

Pakistan-India talks

 

In what is a rare cross-border interview since last year’s annexation of Indian Held Kashmir (IHK) by the Narendra Modi government, Prime Minister Imran Khan’s Adviser on National Security and Strategic Policy Planning Moeed Yusuf dilated on the desire for talks between Pakistan and India while at the same time identifying the roadblocks to this critical step. He surprised audiences in both countries by claiming Pakistan had been receiving messages over the past year for talks. Without spelling out who sent such messages, through whom and to whom, Pakistan, Moeed said, would assess the intent behind such overtures to ensure it was not just a ploy to show to the world that all was well between the two countries, and especially on IHK. He underlined the necessity of an enabling environment for such talks. Dilating on this point, Moeed urged India to reverse its unilateral measures in IHK by releasing all political prisoners, lifting the military siege, reversing the domicile Bill and stopping all human rights violations before a dialogue can begin. In other words, Pakistan wants a restoration of the status quo ante before the August 5, 2019 illegal annexation of IHK. In a clarification, Moeed’s office stated that despite the reversion demand, Pakistan had never accepted the special status of IHK under the repealed Article 370 of the Indian Constitution, therefore reverting to that special status was not a precondition for talks. This means that Pakistan is holding out only for an easing of the repressive measures in IHK in order to provide the enabling environment required for a resumption of the interrupted dialogue. But Pakistan’s insistence was that the Kashmiris must be the third party at the talks, something that has always proved a non-starter for India. Moeed said Pakistan was open to discussing terrorism with India, but rejected the accusation that Pakistan was delaying the Mumbai attacks case, arguing instead that it was India that was delaying the provision of evidence and witnesses. However, Pakistan now sees the issue of terrorism through its own prism, Moeed went on, in which India has been fostering terrorism within Pakistan. As ‘evidence’, Moeed promised a detailed dossier based on lengthy investigations to show that India gave the Tehreek-i-Taliban Pakistan (based on Afghan soil now) $ one million to help it merge with four other militant groups, was involved in the Army Public School Peshawar massacre of students and teachers in 2014, the attacks on the Chinese Consulate and Stock Exchange in Karachi, and the attack on a five-star hotel in Gwadar. As ‘proof’ of Indian support to the Baloch insurgents, Moeed quoted the treatment of their leaders in a New Delhi hospital.

Having thus put India on the terrorist-support mat, Moeed reiterated Imran Khan’s formula that if India took one step forward towards peace, Pakistan would reciprocate with two. At the very least, without exaggerating the importance of this media interaction, it is encouraging to hear that a revival of the stalled dialogue has once again, after a long hiatus, entered the conversation. There are of course considerable obstacles in the path of such a development, but the mere fact that there is a reiteration of the need for a dialogue must be clutched as a slim hope. If the two countries are talking, the track record shows that hostile rhetoric from both sides subsides, tensions and conflict on the Line of Control eases, and, as Moeed put it, both sides sit down to talk like adults. One only hopes the interview finds resonance in India, riven as it is by communal right wing Hindutva frenzy. India in its own interests, just as Pakistan, needs to reach out for rational and acceptable solutions to the two countries’ long-standing problems without reducing the people of IHK to the status of sacrificial lambs. Peace with honour is the only acceptable outcome, but one that must be pursued despite all the difficulties associated with the process.

Business Recorder Editorial October 15, 2020

Independent foreign policy’s imperatives

 

Foreign Minister Shah Mahmood Qureshi dilated on the imperatives of an independent foreign policy while speaking at an event titled ‘Vision FO’ in Islamabad on October 12, 2020. The most telling comment by him was that economic security is a sine qua non for an independent foreign policy. Countries drowned in debt and going around with a begging bowl could not make this desirable goal a reality, he said. Our primary focus, he went on, has been security ever since Pakistan came into being. We are in a better place in that area now, but our vulnerability lies in economic security, he added. Pakistan is destined to remain subject to the International Monetary Fund’s conditionalities or be forced to seek help from countries bilaterally until and unless it becomes independent economically. He then went on to lay out the steps the Foreign Office is taking to improve Pakistan’s economic diplomacy and outreach. These include the overhaul of the Economic Diplomacy Wing, updating the Foreign Office’s ‘toolkit’ to cope with the 21^stcentury’s diplomatic challenges to improve communication, coordination with various departments and specialisation, a 24/7 Crisis Management Centre, updating the curriculum of the Foreign Services Academy in its new premises, using the Institute of Strategic Studies as the research arm of the Foreign Office, upgrading the Institute of Regional Studies after its takeover by the Foreign Office, and setting up an Advisory Council on foreign affairs while adopting modern communication tools and platforms for internal and external quick connectivity. Shah Mahmood Qureshi, in an unspoken allusion to what has been dubbed 5^thgeneration warfare, stressed the importance of developing a narrative that could serve purposes such as countering hostile and negative propaganda and views about Pakistan and its policies.

While Shah Mahmood Qureshi’s explication of the requirements, technical and ideational, of foreign policy in today’s world make sense, the nagging thought remains that his argument about economic security has the potential to nullify all these sincere efforts at improving Pakistan’s image and place in the world. And his rider that we have concentrated on security to such an extent that perhaps not enough attention has been paid to achieving economic security is well taken. Partly the explanation for this course is to be found in the circumstances surrounding the birth of the new state, with larger neighbour India’s hostility providing the foundation for prioritising survival through national and defence security over all other considerations. But given that the country is now 73 years old, a legitimate question arises why we have been unable to balance the imbalance tilted towards national security and defence in the direction of a more self-sufficient, if not independent economy able to stand on its own legs. The explanation at the heart of this conundrum is something Pakistan, despite its peculiar and particular circumstances, shares with most countries of the developing world. That is the phenomenon of having to rely on foreign borrowing to keep the ship of state functioning if not progressing economically. That has landed us eventually in a classic ‘debt trap’, defined as a country having to borrow more and more only to service past debt. This then becomes an unbreakable cycle because of failure to generate sufficient tax revenue to service the debt mountain. Successive governments in our history (not just the present one) have contributed to this scenario by borrowing incrementally more than their predecessors. What is missing in this track record is a plan to reduce over time this dependence on external borrowing until economic security, if not outright independence, is achieved. Truly, only then can one think of an independent foreign policy stance that operates purely in the country’s best interests without being hemmed in by considerations of keeping international and bilateral lenders ‘sweet’. The best minds in the country need to be brought together to debate and consider this objective and suggest ways and means to set the country on the path of economic security, which would have a positive impact on national security too.

Business Recorder Column October 13, 2020

Illusions and prospects

 

Rashed Rahman

 

On the eve of the launch of the Pakistan Democratic Movement’s (PDM’s) campaign of rallies against the incumbent Pakistan Tehreek-i-Insaaf (PTI) government of Prime Minister Imran Khan, one’s thoughts stray to a recurring phenomenon in our political history. This is the cycle of large sections of our society and public opinion initially getting swept away with hopes of something truly positive emerging from the regimes of military usurpers and civilian ‘selected’ governments, only a few years later becoming disillusioned and joining the ranks of opponents of the regime. This indeed is the pattern of initial hailing, later condemning the regimes of Ayub Khan, Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, Pervez Musharraf and Imran Khan, to list a few. Why has this repetitive behaviour defined so much of our political history?

One tentative explanation could be that the initial welcome for such regimes is steeped in disillusionment with all that has gone before, stemming from governments being unable to deliver meaningful outcomes in the interests of the vast majority of people. Ayub Khan used terror and repression to stifle any opposition to his military coup in 1958. His industrialisation programme certainly accelerated the country’s economic development, providing jobs and the beginnings of capitalist modernisation of the economy. However, state-led industrialisation soon produced a cartel of 22 favoured families. This monopolistic capitalism in Pakistan also gave birth to an industrial proletariat. When protests by students broke out in October 1968 against the Ayub regime, the entire opposition, and eventually the working class came out in both wings of the country to spell doom for the regime. Of course, such a spontaneous and diverse opposition had little or no consensus programme except the ouster of the Ayub regime. It did not therefore have any answer to the military coup of Yahya Khan that removed Ayub and harshly repressed the mobilised masses until the protest movement died down. Of course what helped Yahya disarm this disparate agitation was the promise of one man, one vote (dropping One Unit in West Pakistan that depreciated the vote of East Pakistan under the parity scheme) in Pakistan’s first free and fair election in 1970.

But what the Yahya regime badly misjudged was the depth and strength of East Pakistan’s Bengali people’s anger and determination to right the wrongs inflicted on the province since Independence. Aided by Maulana Bhashani’s ill-conceived boycott of the election, the Awami League (AL) of recently released from the Agartala Conspiracy Case trial leader Sheikh Mujibur Rehman swept the polls in East Pakistan. Since that province had a majority of the population of the country, under the one man, one vote paradigm, this translated into a majority in parliament. However, the Yahya regime refused to accept this AL victory, refused to transfer power to it (helped by Zulfikar Ali Bhutto’s collaboration), and launched one of the bloodiest genocidal military crackdowns on East Pakistan. The result, after initial Bengali guerrilla resistance and finally India’s military intervention, was the tragic breakup of the country and the emergence of Bangla Desh.

Zulfikar Ali Bhutto was inducted into power as the majority leader in the remaining Pakistan by the military junta that removed Yahya. This does not and cannot accord Bhutto the title of the first elected prime minister of Pakistan since he did not receive such a mandate in the 1970 elections despite winning a majority of the seats in West Pakistan. Clearly, given Pakistan’s defeat and precarious situation, the military junta realized Bhutto was their only hope of defusing the anger of the people at the 1971 debacle and salvaging the broken pieces of the country. Since Bhutto had promised ‘roti, kapra, makaan’(bread, clothing, shelter, a slogan borrowed from Indira Gandhi), initially vast portions of the people had high expectations from his regime, especially when he attempted land reforms and nationalised the commanding heights of the economy. Initially, this goodwill translated into cooperation with the opposition across the board. But soon, Bhutto revealed his true colours. Within six months of being installed in power, Bhutto turned on the working class that had supported him, killing workers to take back factories occupied by them in SITE, Karachi. Having negotiated with the opposition to install their governments in what was then NWFP and Balochistan, he dismissed the latter provincial government of Sardar Ataullah Mengal in less than a year and launched a military crackdown in the province. Mufti Mahmood’s opposition government in NWFP resigned in protest. Balochistan erupted in a nationalist insurgency, while NWFP was rocked by armed actions against the Bhutto regime. Not content with destroying the very consensus he had forged with the National Awami Party-Jamiat-i-Ulema-i-Islam coalition in these two provinces, Bhutto proceeded to pillory the rest of the opposition. Meanwhile his nationalised sector fell prey to the incompetence of the bureaucracy to whom it was entrusted, while a perceptible shift of landowners into Bhutto’s party effectively reversed land reform. Bhutto, by his repressive actions, united the opposition against him. However, once again the opposition agitation over rigged 1977 elections and anti-repression only succeeded in having Bhutto overthrown by Ziaul Haq in another military coup.

The less said about Zia’s regime and the 1990s decade of civilian ‘musical chairs’ that followed, the better. Nawaz Sharif, groomed by the military, was the beneficiary of the military establishment’s planning when he was elected overwhelmingly in 1997. However, the protégé, like in the past, proved unamenable to complete domination of the military, leading to Pervez Musharraf’s 1999 coup. Surprisingly, but perhaps because people were fed up of and reacting against the kleptocratic Pakistan People’s Party and Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz governments of the 1990s, Musharraf was welcomed and hailed by large sections of even liberal and progressive opinion. It took eight years for the scales to fall from by now a disillusioned public. The lawyers’ movement delivered the coup de grace.

The rising urban middle class that has emerged in recent years in Pakistan, initially welcomed Imran Khan as a hero and saviour. Two years down the road, inflation, unemployment, a struggling economy (not the least because of the corona pandemic), have put paid to all such illusions. Public buy-in to the argument that the 2018 elections were rigged and Imran Khan is a ‘selected’ prime minister is visibly increasing. The PDM therefore stands poised on the cusp of a familiar turn of fortunes of a once hailed and welcomed regime. If the PDM succeeds in making life difficult for the government, one hopes the establishment will see fit to revisit its unending interventions in politics, with usually dire outcomes.

 

 

 

 

 

 

rashed.rahman1@gmail.com

rashed-rahman.blogspot.com

‘I am democracy’

 

Prime Minister (PM) Imran Khan, while addressing an Insaaf Lawyers Forum (ILF) in Islamabad (on October 9, 2020 – deleted by Ed.), argued that the opposition’s real issue with the military is their inability to control the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) after the agency discovered their corruption, unlike their ability to render other institutions subservient to themselves. The reference was to the revelation by Nawaz Sharif during his address from London to the Multi-Party Conference of the opposition, in which he claimed former ISI chief Zaheerul Islam had asked for his resignation. In previous statements, speeches and interviews, the PM had shown indignation at the revelation, saying no one dared do the same to him, and if an ISI chief were to do something like that, Imran Khan would have sacked him on the spot. Now the PM has added his ‘explanation’ why the ISI chief acted as Nawaz said, and why the latter dared not act appropriately at the affront. Imran Khan added in his address that Nawaz’s repeated confrontations with the military during his three stints in power revolved around his desire to reduce the ISI to little more than the status of the Punjab police (implying Nawaz’s total control over the latter force). All other institutions too, the PM alleged, were made subservient to Nawaz Sharif’s will. The reason, Imran Khan continued, why he himself had no problems with the military or ISI was because they knew he was ‘clean’ and a true democrat. “I am democracy,” the PM declared (, in a straying into conceit and arrogance – deleted). Little does, however, the holder of the highest office in the country know that democracy cannot by any stretch of the imagination be reduced to one person. He tried to substantiate his claim by arguing he had been elected after securing the highest number of votes and personally winning on five seats. Had the 2018 elections been rigged, Imran Khan argued, there would have been no need for a coalition government. Logically, perhaps, but critics of the present dispensation counter-argue that the establishment preferred a weak government and PM beholden to the support of parties and individuals considered close if not loyal to the military and its will to avoid the emergence of another ‘Nawaz Sharif’ (since the latter was groomed and brought to power by the establishment, as also reiterated by PM Khan, which did not factor in the dynamics of power once Nawaz became PM). Imran Khan also reiterated his mantra of ‘No NRO’ and then proceeded to claim the opposition’s drive being focused on their vested interests and throwing in the ‘India card’ for good measure, issued a not-so-veiled threat to the opposition that they would be allowed to hold peaceful rallies but would suffer the full force of the law if they broke it.

Pakistan People’s Party’s Chairman Bilawal Bhutto Zardari in a riposte during a press conference said Imran Khan should not drag the military into politics repeatedly by using it as a political prop. The military, he said, like all institutions, is Pakistan’s institution and does not ‘belong’ to any political party. Checking corruption, he continued, was not the army’s job but that of other, civilian institutions mandated accordingly. He too took advantage of the opportunity to predict the impending fall of the ‘floundering’ Imran Khan government under the people’s pressure, while denying any ‘signal’ to this effect had been received or even asked for from the powers-that-be. In the context of the upcoming Gilgit-Baltistan (G-B) elections, Bilawal railed against the military’s role in the 2018 elections and fervently argued against any such repetition in these elections. Bilawal’s point about refraining from dragging the military into politics is well taken in principle, but the problem is that given the military’s direct and indirect interventions in politics in our history, it becomes almost inevitable that fingers will be pointed at an institution that should, in its own, democracy’s, and the country’s interests, turn over a new leaf and refrain from such controversial actions.

Business Recorder Editorial October 9, 2020

Ex-FIA chief’s startling averments

 

Amidst all the furore over the sedition cases filed against the opposition, an interview by an ex-chief of the Federal Investigation Agency (FIA) has further set the cat among the pigeons. Former head of the FIA Bashir Memon in an interview has laid bare the pressures exerted on him by “the highest office”, implying Prime Minister (PM) Imran Khan, to prosecute the main opposition leaders on serious charges without the necessary evidence for doing so. Particularly targeted were the entire Sharif family, which the PM expected to be booked in 56 “fake” companies cases. Those cases are by now before the courts, but Memon had refused on the grounds that this was a provincial matter to be handled by the province’s anti-corruption department and therefore beyond his mandate as head of a federal agency. He went on to state that whatever was happening now to Nawaz Sharif’s son-in-law Captain (retd) Safdar was exactly what the PM had wanted him to do. According to Memon, Imran Khan was resentful because he thought Memon was lenient with the Sharifs. Memon on the other hand had ‘advised’ Imran Khan to use the National Accountability Bureau (NAB) to do all these things. Memon also accused Imran Khan of being indignant at the FIA’s determination to recover Rs 87 billion from the Abraaj group that was owed to the Sui Southern Gas Company. Reports say Abraaj, which runs Karachi Electric, is headed by Arif Naqvi, who is facing deportation from the UK to the US on criminal charges. Naqvi has been a friend of Imran Khan for over 20 years and is accused of the heavy foreign funding of the Pakistan Tehreek-i-Insaaf, a case that lingers before the Election Commission of Pakistan. According to Memon, in the same meeting Imran Khan wanted Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N) leader Khwaja Asif tried for treason for holding a job in a Gulf country while he was defence minister. Memon says he refused because the charge could not be substantiated without evidence of treason. That seems to have proved the last straw as far as Imran Khan was concerned. Soon after, Memon was first sent on leave, then removed as FIA chief and asked to report to the establishment division. However, since these seemingly vindictive actions were taken against an officer just days before his retirement, Memon chose to resign in protest. With more than a hint of irony, the former FIA chief said he was ‘indebted’ to NAB chairman Justice (retd) Javed Iqbal since with his arrival, the pressure on Memon was released. Everything NAB has done since, Memon continued, is exactly what PM Imran Khan had asked him to do but which he had refused. The crowning glory in this sorry tale was when Imran Khan asked Memon to register a terrorism case against Maryam Nawaz and her social media team over a picture of his present spouse circulating on social media, which request too Memon dismissed as not a terrorism case. And as though all this was not enough, Interior Minister Brigadier (retd) Ijaz Shah once called Memon to ask him to ‘break the legs’ of journalist Ahmed Noorani over a controversial tweet. Memon did not act on this request either but Noorani narrowly escaped death in a broad daylight attack in Islamabad by unidentified people a year ago.

The mind fairly boggles before these allegations. If even half of what Memon claims is true, it present a ghastly picture of a government, and particularly its PM, as embarked on a vendetta against the opposition in general, and the PML-N in particular. Since these revelations come from a senior officer, they cannot be lightly dismissed. The government will have to respond to these claims of serious deviations from the rule of law and rational, democratic governance. If it does not respond in an appropriate manner, none will be damaged more than its own reputation and standing.

Business Recorder Editorial October 6, 2020

Executive’s fumbling

 

While hearing a suo motu case regarding the targeted killings of Hazara people and a petition seeking recovery of missing persons at the Supreme Court’s (SC’s) Quetta registry on October 1, 2020, a three-member bench headed by Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP) Gulzar Ahmed rejected as unsatisfactory a police report on the former issue and castigated the law enforcers on their failure regarding the latter. Crime Branch SSP (Investigation) Mohammad Akbar Raisani submitted the report to the bench. The CJP remarked that the officer belonged to the PSP cadre but did not seem to know how to investigate. It seems, the CJP continued, that you expect the applicant to come to you instead of going for investigation and collecting evidence. The court also assailed the police and authorities for their failure to recover the missing persons. It asked the Quetta SSP (Operations) Ghulam Asghar about the status of missing persons. Rejecting the shoddy police inquiry report, the court said all the officers responsible should have been removed. CJP Gulzar Ahmed ordered the Balochistan police to recover and produce the missing persons before the court. The CJP regretted that people were going missing continuously and their relatives were running around and requesting the police to register their complaints. Despite such cases being reported in 2017 and 2018, the performance of the police in this regard was zero, the CJP pointed out. The Quetta SSP (Operations) came in for a bit of stick when the CJP observed that it was the prime responsibility of the police to register the cases of missing persons but they failed to perform their duties satisfactorily. He went on to remark that the police did not seem to know their responsibilities and duties, adding despite that officers of the force succeeded in having themselves elevated to higher ranks and top positions. The SC bench then adjourned the hearing to be taken up in Islamabad in four weeks, with the Balochistan Inspector General of police directed to attend through a video link.

In another missing persons case, Islamabad High Court (IHC) Chief Justice (CJ) Athar Minallah directed the federal government to pay the remaining amount of compensation to petitioner Mahira Sajid, whose husband Sajid Mehmood is ‘missing’ and yet to be recovered. CJ Athar Minallah observed that since the state had accepted its failure to recover the citizen, it was liable to pay compensation to his heirs. Further, that as the state had accepted that it is a case of enforced disappearance, it means that some people of the state are behind this. The CJ directed the government to take action against those responsible for the enforced disappearance of the citizen. The court would not allow the violation of basic human rights, the CJ added, saying the court could go to any extent for implementation of its decisions.

These two court proceedings have once again shone the light on a deeply disturbing phenomenon that afflicts the country. In the case of the Hazaras of Balochistan, sectarian elements have been targeting them for being Shia for years. As far as enforced disappearances are concerned, it too is an issue that first surfaced in Balochistan some years ago in the context of the nationalist insurgency in that province. As for the irritation of the courts vis-à-vis implementation of their directives, one factor, as highlighted by the CJP, is the incompetence rife in the investigative and prosecution fields. But there may also be another factor. That is the reluctance of law enforcers to tread on the toes of what is widely considered the source of these problems: the deep state. Despite the correct and principled castigation of those whose duty it is to uphold the law and human rights, the courts too have more often than not run up against the impunity enjoyed by those considered responsible for these aberrations. Naturally the courts can only ask the executive to fulfil its duty, but there is considerable scepticism whether the executive or even the courts have the means to tear away the veil of secrecy and impunity surrounding the issue of sectarian targeting of the Hazara or the travails of the near and dear ones of those ‘missing’.

The October 2020 issue of Pakistan Monthly Review is out

 The October 2020 issue of Pakistan Monthly Review (link: pakistanmonthlyreview.com) is out.

Contents:

1. From the Editor: Military dominance and the developing political struggle.

2. Professor Dr Maqsudul Hasan Nuri: International relations: revisiting the conventional 'realism' paradigm.

Rashed Rahman

Editor, Pakistan Monthly Review (link: pakistanmonthlyreview.com)

Director, Research and Publication Centre

Business Recorder Editorial October 5, 2020

Local bodies issue

 

While hearing the clubbed petitions of the Pakistan Tehreek-i-Insaaf (PTI), Muttahida Qaumi Movement (MQM) and the Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N) challenging Sections 74 and 75 of the Sindh Local Government Act 2013 and Section 18 of the Sindh Buildings Control Ordinance 1979 as violative of Articles 140-A, 3, 4, 9, 14, 16, 17, 19, 19A and 25 of the Constitution, the petitioners’ prayer to the Supreme Court (SC) was to declare the above sections of the Act and Ordinance as ultra vires of the Constitution, void ab initio and of no legal effect. Initially, Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP) Gulzar Ahmed, heading a three-member bench of the SC, overruled the objections of the SC’s Registrar’s Office to the PTI’s petition, directed the Office to register the petition along with the other identical ones and issued notices to the respondents, including the Sindh government, Attorney General of Pakistan and the Sindh Advocate General. Justice Ijazul Ahsan, a member of the bench, expressed what is in everyone’s mind based on past experience that both the federal and provincial governments were reluctant to devolve powers to the local government institutions. Ironically, he added, when in power no party seems in favour of devolving powers to the local level but only raises it when in opposition. As an example of the state of chaos reigning in the local bodies system, Justice Ahsan remarked that there is no coordination between the Capital Development Authority and the Islamabad Municipal Corporation in the federal capital. The CJP remarked that rendering local bodies’ powers to the provincial or federal governments is unlawful and against Article 140 of the Constitution. The constitution of local bodies was not a matter of likes or dislikes but vital. He observed that people were dying in the province of Sindh due to the devastating floods while Karachi was drowning in rainwater. There was no evidence, he continued, of anyone from the municipalities found on the roads to clear them of water or extend timely service to the people. Thousands of employees were drawing salaries amounting to billions of rupees from the Karachi Municipal Council but could not be seen anywhere for rescuing the affected people. They appeared to be merely ‘ghost’ employees. There was a time, the CJP reminded us, when municipal workers used to start cleaning the roads and streets at midnight. Where had such people gone, the CJP mused.

Successive civilian elected governments have shown a marked reluctance and foot dragging where devolution of powers to the local bodies are concerned. As reflected in the proceedings of the above case in the SC, both federal and provincial governments have been guilty of such practices. Some may argue that in our history, local bodies have been the favourite hobbyhorse and preferred means of garnering political support by all our military rulers. Hence the ‘allergy’ of civilian elected rulers to devolve powers to these. But this is not a valid argument. Just because military usurpers have hijacked the necessary local bodies institutions for their partisan political interests does not justify consigning these institutions to the waste paper basket. Citizens are better able to manage their neighbourhoods and readily approach their local councillors to have their complaints and grievances attended to. The further away from the citizen’s reach authority is in these matters, the more difficult it becomes. This obviously includes provincial chief ministers and ministers and in the case of the federal capital, the prime minister and federal cabinet members, who should in any case be concentrating on their area of responsibility and not be burdened by municipal tasks. The other anomaly in our history is the penchant for all governments to date, including military and civilian, to conduct local bodies elections on a non-party basis. This and the reluctance to empower local bodies when they are in existence stem from the same insecurity: provincial and federal politicians do not want to let go of the powers usurped from local institutions. Given this track record, perhaps the time has come to consider amending the Constitution to ensure local bodies exist, are empowered, and are elected on party basis since the ‘non-party’ elections eventually reveal the local bodies political affiliations anyway.

Business Recorder Editorial October 2, 2020

Abdullah Abdullah’s visit

 

Chairman of Afghanistan’s High Council for National Reconciliation Abdullah Abdullah’s visit to Pakistan has elicited unprecedented mutual bonhomie. At a seminar at the Institute of Strategic Studies Islamabad on September 29, 2020 and interaction with Foreign Minister Shah Mahmood Qureshi and Prime Minister (PM) Imran Khan, Abdullah Abdullah stressed the centrality of Pakistan’s role for peace in Afghanistan. Both sides emphasised the need to learn from the past, often bitter and marred by mutual mistrust and acrimony, and turn over a new leaf in their ties. Abdullah Abdullah credited Pakistan with facilitating the US-Taliban agreement and the intra-Afghan talks in Doha. He argued for going beyond the usual stale rhetoric and shadowy conspiracy theories after so many troubled years that impeded cooperation because of frayed ties. He emphasised drawing the necessary lessons about gains, losses, threats, opportunities, especially missed win-win solutions, reduced tensions, promotion of moderation, increased regional connectivity, trade, transit, economic integration, business-to-business and people-to-people interactions. Echoing these sentiments, Shah Mahmood Qureshi called for the recognition of past mistakes and the adding of a new chapter to bilateral ties. He underlined that Pakistan had no favourites in Afghanistan, did not want to meddle in Afghanistan’s internal affairs, respected its sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity. Pakistan, Qureshi went on, would support the Doha consensus and accept the will of the Afghan people. In his meeting with the PM, Abdullah Abdullah revealed that the Afghan leadership had directed its negotiating team to show flexibility in its talks with the Taliban so as to be able to seize this historic opportunity. He also pledged that Afghan soil would not be allowed in future to be used against any other country, a formulation that should bring some comfort to the US (reference 9/11) and Pakistan (regarding the Tehreek-i-Taliban Pakistan based in Afghanistan).

Although Abdullah Abdullah and his hosts have articulated diplomatic positives, one cannot close one’s eyes to the other side of the picture. Pakistan has been stressing a reduction of violence in Afghanistan as a prerequisite for peace in response to a sharp spike in fighting during the three weeks so far of the intra-Afghan dialogue in Doha. Kabul wants the Taliban to declare a ceasefire, while the Taliban are linking any ceasefire to a political settlement. In the meantime, it seems, the Taliban have turned the military screws, perhaps in an effort to exert pressure on the Afghan government. As for Pakistan, it seems the fallacious notions of ‘strategic depth’ to counter the apprehended threat of ‘encirclement’ and a ‘two-front war’ have now been dispensed with. These notions in any case were rooted in paranoia about the Indian influence and role in troubled Afghanistan. After a long hiatus during the long Mujahideen struggle against the Afghan communists and the former Soviet Union, India revived its traditional friendship with Afghanistan through offering economic and financial aid. This economic aid gambit resurrected fears in Pakistan about India exploiting the troubled Afghanistan scenario against it or its interests. That scenario and the level of India’s investment in the relationship with Afghanistan have changed immeasurably by now, thereby easing Islamabad’s concerns about Indian influence. This development should logically give Pakistan the necessary confidence to back the peace process. Abdullah Abdullah and the Afghan government know that if they are to persuade the Taliban through talks to be open to Kabul’s demands in a reciprocal search for peace, the road to that goal lies through Islamabad because of the perceived influence Pakistan still holds over the insurgents. And Pakistan needs to be equally willing to meet the Afghan government’s concerns vis-à-vis some of the hardline attitudes of the Taliban so that our long suffering neighbour finds peace at last and Islamabad and Kabul open windows to let fresh air and sunshine in to improve their troubled relationship.