Business Recorder Column June 29, 2021

Portents of a disaster foretold

 

Rashed Rahman

 

For all the apparent angst being displayed by Pakistan’s ruling Pakistan Tehreek-i-Insaaf (PTI) regarding developments in Afghanistan, one cannot but reflect on the ironies that history has thrown up vis-à-vis that long running conflict. The start of the US/NATO forces’ withdrawal from Afghanistan on May 1, 2021 has seemingly triggered what appears to be an offensive by the Taliban to surround the cities from the countryside in preparation for a big push once the foreign forces leave. Why has this surprised anyone, especially Islamabad? The writing was always on the wall, the Doha agreement for US withdrawal notwithstanding. Since that agreement confined itself to a bilateral understanding that the US would withdraw, it effectively sounded the death knell, sooner or later, for the Afghan government of President Ashraf Ghani.

The Taliban are concentrating for the moment on the north of the country, far away from their main base in the Pashtun east and south east. They have had forces in that area for some time. One proof of that is the fact that the northern town of Kunduz, which the Taliban took twice before in the past only to be beaten back, has fallen to them along with the Shir Khan Bandar border crossing with Tajikistan. The casualties since fighting broke out about a week ago include 29 civilians killed, 225 wounded. The civilian population is fleeing. Some 5,000 families have already fled, with the Afghan government hard pressed to provide relief to them. An airstrike on Taliban minelayers in Kunduz province killed six insurgents. But this incident reminds one of the dwindling ability of the Afghan air force in the absence of US air and maintenance support.

In Kunduz’s neighbouring Takhar province, heavy fighting is reported from the Rustaq district. Contradictory claims of victory by both sides need to be discounted as the fighting has yet to abate. The Taliban captured Andkhoy district of Faryab province on June 24, 2021, only to abandon it the next day after a heavy government counter-attack that yielded 25 militants killed. While retreating, the Taliban set 100 shops and 25 houses ablaze. This may well set the template for towns, districts or provinces that change hands because of the ebb and flow of the war. In parallel with Kunduz’s border crossing with Tajikistan, Faryab province connects with Turkmenistan through Andkhoy. It seems clear then that the northern Taliban offensive aims to cut off the northern provinces’ access to neighbouring Central Asian countries while encircling the towns and cities from the countryside in classic guerrilla fashion.

But this northern salient does not mean the Taliban are not active elsewhere in the country. Of Afghanistan’s 400 districts, the Taliban claim control of 90-142, with 170 more contested. Where they have established control, Taliban shadow local governments have been installed. Major cities such as Kandahar or the capital Kabul are in the Taliban sights at some point, particularly after they see the back of the remaining foreign troops. The suggestion from Washington recently that about 650 US soldiers may stay behind to protect diplomatic missions has received a firm rebuff from the Taliban, who see any such move as violative of the Doha agreement, justifying their reaction against any move to retain any foreign troops for any reason.

The course of the Taliban offensive so far indicates the real and present danger that the Afghan security forces, especially in remote areas, will crumble before a determined enemy. Already, reports are pouring in of Afghan government forces deserting or surrendering. This lends little confidence about their morale or confidence, let alone their ability, despite millions of dollars spent on their armaments, equipment and training, to hold off the Taliban. The respective strengths of the contending sides should not befool us. Despite the fact that on paper the Afghan government forces number about 300,000 and their opponents cannot boast of more than 10,000 fighters in the field, it is morale that is critical on the battlefield, especially when the Taliban guerrillas are nibbling away at the government’s hold wherever it appears weakest.

President Ashraf Ghani and Peace Council head Abdullah Abdullah met US President Joe Biden in Washington the other day. Apart from a pledge to continue economic and military support to the Afghan government, Biden did not say anything that may imply reversing the withdrawal plan or schedule. The prize question remains whether such support would prove sufficient to hold back the Taliban wave, assuming it would be available indefinitely (an unlikely prospect). President Ghani is trying to persuade the anti-Taliban militias that dot the country to forge a united front in support of the government forces. However, judging by past experience, it is not certain that such a united front, even if it did come into existence, would be able to hold together and not degenerate into the kind of civil war anarchy witnessed in the past.

It may be jumping the gun to predict an outright Taliban victory soon after the last post has sounded for the remaining US forces on September 11, 2021, but the emerging trend cannot be easily dismissed. A fresh stage of the civil war may well emerge after that date and even drag on for a bit, but there is healthy and justified scepticism regarding the government forces’ ability, solidity and resilience. In case anyone in Pakistan is pleased with this turn of events, they are advised to think again. This (last?) phase of the Afghan endgame may prove bloody but predictable. Eventually the Taliban will take over the country. Sporadic resistance may well continue, as happened even during the Taliban’s stint in power from 1996 to 2001, but the Taliban seem poised to grab the levers of power once again. Their spokesmen’s attempts at reassuring Afghans that this time their Islamic Emirate will not be as harsh as the previous one fail to inspire confidence, given their well established fanatical views about women, different ethnic nationalities that constitute the Afghan mosaic, and ideas about democracy that are anathema to them.

Pakistan, which ironically has seamlessly (at least in its own perception) made the transition from intervening in Afghanistan through armed proxies (since 1973 to the present day) to ‘peacemaker’, is about to be hoist by its own petard, once again underlining the double-edged weapon proxies more often than not turn out to be. Brace for a fresh influx of refugees fleeing the fighting, a possible uptick in terrorism once again at the hands of the Tehreek-i-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) resting on Afghan soil since it was ousted from our tribal areas, especially if Islamabad carries through its stated intent to seal the border if the Taliban take over. Such sealing of the most important border for landlocked Afghanistan cannot but be taken as a hostile act by whoever is in charge in Kabul, including the Taliban. The border, despite fencing, is still porous given the terrain, offering temptation to the Taliban to use the TTP card against Pakistan if it does not play ball.

Welcome to a sorry tale of kicking Afghanistan around like a football for almost 55 years, whose wages of all the original sin are about to land in our laps.

 

 

 

 

rashed.rahman1@gmail.com

rashed-rahman.blogspot.com

Business Recorder Editorial June 24, 2021

PM’s interview

 

In a wide-ranging interview with Jonathan Swan of HBO, Prime Minister (PM) Imran Khan answered some prickly questions and enunciated, amongst other things, Pakistan’s policy vis-à-vis Kashmir, nuclear deterrence in the Subcontinent, Afghanistan, US-Pakistan relations post-withdrawal, and the Uighur issue in China. The PM’s view was that the single issue of Kashmir is holding over 1.6 billion people of the Subcontinent hostage. If the issue is resolved in accordance with the UN Security Council’s resolutions envisaging a plebiscite promised to the people of Kashmir to decide their future, Pakistan and India would live like civilised neighbours and the need for a nuclear deterrent against a country seven times Pakistan’s size would not be needed. This argument aligned with the PM’s view of our nuclear deterrent being purely defensive in nature and his explicitly stated distaste for nuclear weapons as such. On Afghanistan, the PM drew his map for Afghanistan’s future in the shape of a political settlement leading to a coalition government in which the Taliban would have their share of the cake. Imran Khan feared that the US withdrawal proceeding apace without that political settlement risked a fresh civil war, the fallout for Pakistan of a new refugee influx and possible uptick in terrorism. Imran Khan categorically refuted any suggestion that the US would be provided bases in Pakistan to conduct operations in Afghanistan. Even the use of Pakistani airspace for bombing targets in Afghanistan was pooh poohed by Imran Khan as doing the same ineffectual thing again that had not got the US anywhere over 20 years. The PM expressed the hope that the Biden administration would show the resolve and will as the most powerful country in the world to help resolve the vexed Kashmir issue. On Xinjiang, Imran Khan refused to go along with the intense propaganda of the west that the Muslim Uighurs were being maltreated by China in Xinjiang. He emphasised that discussions on this and most other bilateral and other issues were held behind closed doors with our Chinese friends, who had stood with us through thick and thin.

While the main thrust of the PM’s answers spelt out his government’s policies on all these subjects, there may arguably be an overlay of oversimplification underlying some of his statements. For example, while no right thinking person would defend nuclear weapons per se, it seems farfetched that India, despite a resolution of the Kashmir issue (difficult as that still seems), would give up what it conceives of as its nuclear deterrent against China. And if India would not be prepared to go down that route, neither would Pakistan for its own defence reasons. That of course is not an argument against a just resolution of the Kashmir issue, only a cautionary note that nuclear disarmament in the Subcontinent (wishful thinking as that may appear) is not simply tied to a resolution of the Kashmir issue but has wider regional and geopolitical ramifications. An interesting development taking place is the All Parties Conference in Kashmir called by the Modi government to discuss Kashmir’s state of affairs. To make the conference possible, all the Kashmiri leaders incarcerated when Modi illegally annexed Kashmir, reversed its autonomous status according to Article 370 of the Indian Constitution, and divided Jammu and Kashmir into a federally ruled state with the exception of Ladakh, which was separated, have been freed. Those recently released leaders are gearing up to make the case at the conference (scheduled for today) that the Modi government must reverse its steps of two years ago and restore the status quo ante in Kashmir. Arguably, the exacerbated tensions and violence in Kashmir may have persuaded the Modi government to revisit its steps. As far as Afghanistan is concerned, there is little to cheer about. The US/NATO troops will soon be gone, leaving Afghanistan to the tender mercies of a Taliban gathering steam on the battlefield as they nibble away at province after province. The worst case scenario of a Taliban takeover and possible fresh civil war looms over all else, especially since the Taliban-Afghan government dialogue in Doha remains stalled. Pakistan must brace for the fallout in the wake of these developments.

Business Recorder Editorial June 22, 2021

Targeting the judges

 

Pakistan Bar Council (PBC) vice chairman Khushdil Khan has taken notice of a troubling development vis-à-vis the superior judiciary. On June 17, 2021, Khan directed the provincial and federal Bar Councils (BCs) to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the office bearers of those Bar Associations (BAs) that recently passed resolutions against superior court judges. The issue has emerged against the backdrop of the alleged move by the federal law ministry to link grants-in-aid to the passing of resolutions by the BAs against some superior courts judges. Khushdil Khan pointed out that the federal and provincial governments are bound under Section 57 of the Legal Practitioners and Bar Councils Act, 1973 to provide grants-in-aid to the BCs and BAs. Such grants-in-aid, he continued, are not the property of the law ministry. He expressed serious concern over the move against independent judges of the superior judiciary. He asserted that the lawyers’ community was united and no one would be able to create divisions amongst them. Khushdil Khan vowed that the lawyers would protect independent judges and go to any extent for the independence of the judiciary and rule of law. He regretted that the law ministry was ‘stooping so low as to use the grants-in-aid as a tool to get the support of lawyers against the judges’. On June 16, 2021 however, the law ministry categorically denied that the federal government was pressurising tehsil,district and high court BAs to adopt resolutions against sitting judges of the Supreme Court (SC) and higher judiciary. This denial notwithstanding, a convention of lawyers and civil society in Islamabad on June 17, 2021 on ‘Assault on Judiciary and Media’ condemned the ‘systematic manipulation’ of the judiciary, appointment of judges, ‘victimisation and vilification’ of judges, and demanded those involved in these unacceptable activities be brought to book.

It should be kept in mind that the contentious resolutions referred to above have not targeted the superior judiciary per se, only those judges considered too ‘independent’. Topping that list is SC Justice Qazi Faez Isa, who has been put through the wringer along with his family by a presidential reference moved against him before the Supreme Judicial Council (SJC). Despite that, Justice Isa and his family have been cleared of all the spurious grounds adumbrated against them in the SJC as well as before his fellow judges of the SC. Everything that has flowed from the powers that be as a result, facilitated and supported, it must be said with regret, by the Pakistan Tehreek-i-Insaaf government, has been somehow to find a way to remove Justice Isa. But all their machinations have come to naught. The law ministry after this failed effort is alleged to have decided to use grants-in-aid as pressure levers to get resolutions passed by the BAs against independent judges like Justice Isa. However, this campaign too appears stillborn since the PBC has taken disciplinary action against the office bearers of such open-to-manipulation BAs, whose move also elicited a protest strike on June 17, 2021 by the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa BC. The perceived extent of threat to the superior courts judges who are considered ‘too’ independent is mind-boggling. Justice Shaukat Siddiqui of the Islamabad High Court (IHC) has been successfully removed by the SJC for exposing in a speech the pressures allegedly faced by him from the security establishment to get judgements to their liking. One can criticise former IHC judge Siddiqui for not addressing the issue through proper channels and methods, i.e. reporting the phenomenon to his chief justice, but little or no attention or action has followed his revelations against the alleged security establishment personnel involved in such shenanigans. It goes without saying that in a democratic system, the independence of the judiciary as an institution and judges individually is a sine qua non if the system is to credibly retain that description.

Business Recorder Editorial June 18, 2021

Parliament: this time they went too far

 

The scenes in parliament over three successive days when Leader of the Opposition Shahbaz Sharif was speaking on the budget can only make democrats’ heads hang in shame. It seems that the ruling Pakistan Tehreek-i-Insaaf (PTI) government decided in its weekly cabinet meeting before Shahbaz Sharif had even uttered a word on ‘retaliation’ for the noise disruption resorted to by the opposition during Finance Minister Shaukat Tarin’s budget presentation speech. However, carried away by zeal in their ‘mission’, treasury members, encouraged, it appears, by cabinet ministers, by far outstripped the opposition by resorting to catcalling, whistling, abuse, standing on their seats to shout slogans and using budget documents as ‘missiles’. Inevitably some on the other side responded in kind. The National Assembly Speaker, Asad Qaiser, seemed helpless in trying to restrain the treasury members, let alone the opposition. Even sergeants-at-arms inducted from the Senate staff failed to halt the growing chaos. They did, however, insert themselves between the two ‘warring’ sides to prevent an even more serious physical clash. Shahbaz Sharif continued with his speech for three hectic days, another new record, while his party members threw a cordon around him to prevent any harm coming to him from the highly aggressive treasury members trying to ‘storm’ the dais from which he was speaking, as well as his seat in the house. Scuffles there were aplenty, and one treasury woman MNA was injured by a flying document in the eye. The Speaker was forced time and again to suspend the proceedings to allow tempers to cool and for the two sides of the aisle to discuss how to restore calm and allow the proceedings to continue unhindered by threats of, and actual, violence. Unfortunately, even the Speaker’s efforts came to naught in quelling the chaos. Seven MNAs were suspended indefinitely by him from attending the house, having been found guilty of being in the forefront of verbal and physical abuse that resembled not so much parliamentary behaviour as a fish market (perhaps that is an insult to the latter). Needless to say, neither the budget presented nor the Leader of the Opposition’s critique found much traction in the gladiators’ arena to which the house had been reduced.

Perhaps one should not be surprised that things have come to this pretty pass as far as parliament is concerned. The problem stems from the gutter language and abuse that informed the narrative of the PTI when in opposition, particularly during their ‘container’ days. However, one could have been forgiven for hoping that after entering office, the party would realize that what seemingly offered political mileage in opposition may not be appropriate coming from a party in power. Unfortunately, no such sea change has been in evidence over the last three years of the PTI’s government. If anything, the shrillness of the narrative has gone up in tandem with the political witch-hunt many in the country consider is being pursued by the government against the opposition leadership through weaponised institutions such as the National Accountability Bureau (NAB). To then expect that the opposition would adhere to parliamentary norms of behaviour or cooperate with the treasury in running the house in a civilised, acceptable manner may have been, and indeed turned out to be, baying for the moon. Parliament has been rendered dysfunctional in the process, with Prime Minister Imran Khan deigning to attend the house rarely, if at all. The government, instead of revisiting its attitude and persuading the opposition to run parliament in an orderly manner, carried on blithely a la its opposition days, using Presidential Ordinances or rushed through Bills without debate for legislation, further reducing parliament to an irrelevant, rowdy chamber echoing with unparliamentary language and behaviour. The latest fracas is only the logical outcome of these tendencies. While the opposition can be criticised for not responding to government provocations in a measured manner in parliament at least, the greater fault lies with the treasury benches, in whose interest it is (should they understand this) to have parliament run smoothly. Both sides should perhaps glance back at the history of extra-parliamentary interventions in our country as a precautionary tale. It seems obvious to even the dullest intelligence that continuing in the vein exhibited during the budget session threatens the democratic system with another intervention that would leave both sides of the divide cooling their heels outside the (should be) hallowed halls of democracy’s highest institution.

Business Recorder Editorial June 17, 2021

Provincial abhorrence to local governments

 

Federal Information Minister Fawad Chaudhry used his visit to Karachi recently to lay into the Sindh government’s failure to implement Article 140-A pertaining to the Local Governments (LGs) system and its attendant devolution of political, administrative and financial powers to these bodies. He called upon the Supreme Court (SC) to ensure implementation of Article 140-A to address the ‘constitutional crisis’ of Sindh. His justification for invoking the SC’s intervention was that there was no room in the Constitution for Governor’s Rule in the province, nor was this a solution to the problems of Sindh. The rest of his press conference and statements repeated the litany of charges against the Pakistan People’s Party (PPP) Sindh government ranging from misusing development funds, stoking the politics of (ethnic?) hatred in the province, destroying the healthcare system and denying Sindh’s complaints of not receiving its due share of water. As expected, the PPP Sindh government’s spokespeople too responded with vitriol based on the fact that Fawad Chaudhry had the gall to call the provincial government to account on the LGs issue whereas the PTI federal, Punjab and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (KP) governments had dissolved or failed to hold elections for the LGs. In the Centre, the five year term of the LGs ended in February 2021 and despite the fact that fresh elections had to be held within six months, for which fresh delimitation was required at least three months before the polls, nothing had been done in this regard. In KP the term of the LGs is four years but these have been dissolved by the PTI government without fresh elections so far. Not only that, even the freshly merged districts of the erstwhile FATA have yet to see LGs in place. But the real masterpiece has been Punjab, where the LGs were dissolved before their term ended (no doubt because they were dominated by the Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz), a decision struck down by the SC, whose orders to reinstall the LGs’ office bearers is being resisted by the PTI Punjab government. Given this track record, it is the height of hypocrisy, if not an expedient case of the pot calling the kettle black, for the PTI to aim what turns out to be a double-edged sword (or argument) against the Sindh government on the LGs issue.

While one may have issues with Fawad Chaudhry’s anti-Sindh government or anti-PPP stance, one cannot but agree with his statement that LGs are critical for service delivery at the citizen’s doorstep. Not just that, they constitute the first rung of the structure of any democratic system. Provincial and national legislators cannot adequately deal with local grievances and problems. Nor is this their job. If memory serves, it was General Ziaul Haq’s military regime that instituted a partyless (selected) parliament and handed local finances and functions to its members as a bribe. To top that, every elected civilian government since, and there are hardly any exceptions across the board, has appeared hesitant if not resistant to the devolution of power to the LGs, on the assumption that this would weaken their hold on their constituencies. Perhaps it is not an accident, given this continuing lapse, that neither legislation, which is the responsibility of the parliamentarians, nor local issues that are the remit of the LGs, have been well served by this institutional failure. Irrespective of the party in power in any province or at the Centre, LGs should be installed and supported through the devolution of political, administrative and financial powers in order to allow these ‘missing’ institutions to serve the citizen better. It would be desirable that the Constitution be suitably amended to ensure the functioning of elected local bodies as well as distribution of adequate resources to them through a constitutionally-mandated ‘provincial finance commission’ on similar lines as the National Finance Commission (NFC).

Business Recorder Editorial June 4, 2021

Vaccine equality

 

Four major international organisations – the World Health Organisation (WHO), World Bank, International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Trade Organisation – have called on world leaders to make a “new commitment” to the more equal distribution of vaccines to combat the Covid pandemic. In an article in The Washington Post, the respective heads of these organisations have argued that inequality in access to vaccinations between wealthy and poor countries is further complicating and prolonging the pandemic, which has so far claimed 3.5 million lives globally. The access gap between rich and poor countries, they argue, is responsible for the emergence of the variants of the virus fuelling fresh outbreaks in the developing world. It goes without saying that the group has hit the nail on the head when they say there can be no broad-based recovery without an end to this health crisis. For that end, global access to the vaccines is critical. Ending the pandemic is possible, they continue, but this requires global action now. Addressing the G-7 group of developed countries, they say the group should agree on a “stepped-up, coordinated strategy” and commit to new financing for the effort at their next meeting in London this month, preferably in support of the IMF’s $ 50 billion plan. In May 2021, the G-7 had committed to financially support the UN-backed Covax programme but failed to announce any immediate fresh funding despite repeated calls for the G-7 to do more to help poorer countries. Previously, in March 2021, WHO had characterised inequality in access to the vaccines “grotesque”, and in May 2021 asked the wealthy countries to refrain from administering shots to less vulnerable children and adolescents within their own countries, donating inadequately available vaccines to other, more vulnerable countries instead. But contrary to the thrust of the Covax programme, the wealthy countries elbowed out Covax in the early stages of vaccine procurement, striking their own deals with drug manufacturers to take an overwhelming share of the 1.8 billion doses administered worldwide.

The corona pandemic has served to expose the fundamental inequities imbedded in the global health system. Big Pharma has played a capitalist, market- and profit-oriented role in booking inadequate vaccine supplies for the wealthiest countries. That may have helped, for example, Britain to move from 4.49 million total cases of which 127,782 died within 28 days of testing positive since the pandemic broke out, which is the worst toll in Europe, to zero deaths today despite the rise in Delta variant cases. Britain’s highly developed health system and early procurement at the cost of leaving the poorer countries in the lurch no doubt contributed to this happy outcome. But UK Health Secretary Matt Hancock has warned that the welcome milestone does not mean the virus is beaten yet. The fact is that the pandemic can only be rolled back if the whole world is provided access to vaccines, first and foremost for the most vulnerable, e.g. health workers and older people, and then, incrementally as vaccines become available in adequate quantities, to the rest. Vaccine ‘nationalism’, i.e. prioritising one’s own people first, irrespective of comparative vulnerability, cannot and will not scotch the pandemic. Either the world, particularly the rich countries, understand that unless access to vaccines for the people of the world, prioritising the most vulnerable first, is ensured, there is little guarantee that the virus cannot resurge. Countries such as Vietnam, celebrated in the early days of the pandemic for an excellent record of controlling the outbreak, are today afflicted like many others. This underlines the truth that either the world works together on this, or no one is safe. The call from the four major global organisations goes to the heart of the matter: we all either sink or swim together.

The June 2021 issue of Pakistan Monthly Review (PMR) is out

 The June 2021 issue of Pakistan Monthly Review (PMR) is out. Link: pakistanmonthlyreview.com

Contents:

1. Rashed Rahman: Mozambique too afflicted with fundamentalism.

2. Aasim Sajjad Akhtar: Book review of Ali Raza's Revolutionary Pasts: Communist Internationalism in Colonial India.

3. Gemini: The struggle against the military in Myanmar.

Rashed Rahman

Editor, Pakistan Monthly Review (PMR)

Director, Research and Publication Centre (RPC)

Business Recorder Editorial June 3, 2021

PDM’s split

 

The opposition Pakistan Democratic Movement (PDM) can by now be described not only as a house divided but also grappling with internal fissures. The March 16, 2021 PDM meeting in Islamabad put the seal on the fracture between the PDM on one side and the Pakistan People’s Party (PPP) and Awami National Party (ANP) on the other. The actual dramatics of the split may have taken on personal overtones when PPP co-chairperson Asif Zardari launched a personalised diatribe against Nawaz Sharif. But the real cause of the parting of the ways was on the question of mass resignations from parliament. Maulana Fazlur Rehman’s ‘strategy’ emerged as a combination of such resignations and a ‘long march’ on Islamabad. However, the devil was in the detail. How such a combination was expected to unseat the Pakistan Tehreek-i-Insaaf (PTI) government was unclear. It sounded like the triumph of hope over reality. With hindsight, the whole idea of mass resignations had an immeasurable variety of holes in it. The biggest of these was the prospect of mass resignations leaving the field clear for the PTI government to carry out its desire to roll back the 18^thAmendment, and bring in the draconian Pakistan Media Development Authority law to further curb not just the mainstream media but film, television, social media and web-based media platforms. If the government had gone ahead with by-elections to the vacated seats, the PDM would have been caught on the horns of a dilemma. If it participated in such by-elections, that brought into question the resignations justification in the first place. If they boycotted, the PTI would have arguably swept the slate clean and merrily proceeded with its legislative agenda without let or hindrance. The issue split the PDM right down the middle. Asif Zardari’s outburst against Nawaz Sharif may have initiated the ‘hostilities’, but the PDM’s high handed (for an alliance) show cause notices sealed the break. Now the former allies seem to be gravitating towards two parallel platforms outside parliament, one comprising five parties – PML-N, JUI-F, PkMAP, NP and BNP-M – and the other two parties – PPP and ANP.

However, bleak as these developments rendered the prospects of the opposition, the release from detention of Shahbaz Sharif seems to have set another momentum in motion. Shahbaz is attempting to heal the rift in the opposition ranks, with the upcoming budget foremost in mind. He would dearly love to have the opposition give a tough time to the government during the budget presentation and debate, with, hopeful signs indicate, the PPP on board. Shahbaz would also like the PML-N to veer towards engagement with the establishment rather than the hardline position of Nawaz Sharif being propounded within the country by Maryam Nawaz. Whether Nawaz can be persuaded by his younger brother to take a more pragmatic line rather than confrontation is critical to healing the fissures within the PML-N. The parliamentarians of the party have ben mutedly expressing their disquiet at the hard line adopted by Nawaz Sharif against the establishment for very practical reasons. One, their constituency support may slip without defusing the confrontation with the establishment, threatening their chances in the next general elections. Then there could also be local bodies elections looming, which could offer an opportunity to mobilise and consolidate the PML-N’s support base in Punjab. It is difficult at this point to say whether Shahbaz’s more conciliatory approach will work to persuade Nawaz Sharif as to its wisdom and practicality, and whether his more open approach to opposition unity can overcome the gulf between the two sides of the divided opposition. On balance, it appears the opposition may have to get used to fighting within parliament in conjunction with its planned revival of mass rallies from July 4-August 14, 2021. The difficulties in its path have revived memories of Nawabzada Nasrullah Khan, that magical weaver of opposition alliances in our history.

Business Recorder Column June 1, 2021

Water conflicts

 

Rashed Rahman

 

The reasons for the collapse of the ancient Indus Valley riverine Civilisation are unclear, but most experts are agreed it was probably water scarcity due to the change in course of the Indus River, combined with diminishing rainfall that brought about the demise of this jewel in our history. Today, the legatee of that civilisation, i.e. Pakistan (in its post-1971 form), is arguably faced with a crisis of water scarcity that bodes ill for the future. Given the history of conflicts between the upper riparian Punjab and the lower riparian Sindh on water distribution, it is no surprise that this year’s water scarcity has once again produced arguments, accusations and allegations about injustice and inequality in water distribution.

The issue between Punjab and Sindh is as old as the country. Unlike Punjab, blessed by the waters of five rivers (now three after the Indus Waters Treaty 1960), Sindh is entirely dependent on the waters of the Indus. Complaints of water stoppage or diversion for own use by Punjab have been a constant refrain in Sindh over the years. These complaints fed into, and stymied, the construction of the Kalabagh Dam because of the atmosphere of mistrust and suspicion between the upper and lower riparian provinces (Khyber Pakhtunkhwa’s objection to the Dam was based on fears of its agricultural areas being subsumed by the reservoir). In 1991, then Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif managed a rare consensus of all the provinces in the Water Accord. However, Sindh’s complaint of inadequate Indus River flows downstream Kotri, which had turned the bed of the Indus into a desert and destroyed the Delta flora and fauna plus agriculture, particularly fruit orchards, in Badin, Thatta, etc, could not be allayed because the Accord allocated a minimum 10 MAF per annum downstream Kotri, pending studies to determine the Delta and southern Sindh’s drinking water (the ground water in the province is brackish) and irrigation needs. Politics (the fall of the Nawaz government in 1993) prevented such studies, which have yet to be carried out. The Accord’s 10 MAF per annum minimum was also released in total in the 2-3 months of the monsoon season when storages overflowed with water, leaving southern Sindh in the same dire straits the rest of the year. Sindh also has long standing complaints against the opening of the Chashma-Jehlum Link Canal in Punjab every so often when it is meant only for flood season water surplus times. The Canal has been the source of much heartburn in Sindh throughout its existence since 1974.

This year, interruptions to the traditionally steady rise of temperatures starting in May have incrementally increased water shortages because of slow snow melt in the mountains that feeds the rivers in summer. As a result, the Indus River System Authority (IRSA) has increased its calculation of water scarcity from 23 percent to 32 percent for Punjab and Sindh (Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and Balochistan are excluded). Inevitably, IRSA members from Sindh and Punjab (the latter at present also chairman) have clashed in unseemly fashion during a meeting. To their credit, both provincial governments have agreed to have independent inspectors check and monitor the main barrages and headworks in both provinces to put an end to the ugly spat. These inspectors will for the moment be taken from the Water and Power Development Authority (WAPDA), pending permanent arrangements for such independent inspectors. This is a long overdue need, given the inability of IRSA to resolve differences between its provincial members, particularly Punjab and Sindh.

Pakistan suffers from inadequate water storages. Kalabagh Dam is dead in the water (pun intended) and the Bhasha-Diamer Dam is unlikely to be completed for a long time given financial constraints and lack of international funding. Big dams in any case are no longer in favour. Nothing, however, prevents Pakistan from building smaller dams, particularly in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and the northern areas. In addition, incremental lining of canals and water courses could save three times the water that would have been stored in Kalabagh Dam and prevent waterlogging and salinity that gobbles up thousands of acres of farm land every year.

This year’s ‘interrupted’ summer is an indication of climate change. When we were growing up, you could literally set your clock to the rhythm of the seasons and their predictability. This can no longer be taken for granted. Pakistan’s deforestation rate of 2.1 percent per annum implies the forests will run out by 2050. This would be a devastating calamity, causing rainfall to decrease and turning the whole country into a desert. While planting trees is a good idea of the current Pakistan Tehreek-i-Insaaf (PTI) government, caring for those planted saplings is as critical. And the timber mafia has to be stopped in its tracks if Pakistan is not to suffer the combined catastrophe that deforestation and climate change may bring.

In the 1950s, present day Pakistan boasted of a per capita water availability of 5,000 cubic metres per annum. Now it is 1,000 cubic metres, the threshold of water scarcity. Unlike in our childhood when everyone drank tap water, today only 20 percent of the population has access to clean drinking water. The rest 80 percent have to rely on water polluted by sewerage, fertilizer, pesticides and industrial effluents. Such water is responsible for 80 percent water-borne diseases and 30 percent deaths due to such diseases.

The prospects appear grim, needing the declaration of a fair and equitable water management policy that sheds provincial blinkers and begins to see the country’s and its people’s interests as a whole, irrespective of location. Otherwise we cannot rule out deaths by drought (Quetta is currently literally without even drinking water), drying lakes and rivers, further lowering of the already perilously receding water table, wastage of water, lack of storages, population growth and climate change converging to produce a catastrophe in the future.

If the Indus Valley Civilisation could speak to us across time and space, they would no doubt administer advice to the effect of learning to manage nature’s resources in a sustainable, fair and equitable manner, lest we suffer their fate.

 

 

 

 

 

rashed.rahman1@gmail.com

rashed-rahman.blogspot.com

Business Recorder Editorial June 1, 2021

US air bases, corridor post-withdrawal

 

Of late, there has been a flurry of contacts and meetings between Pakistani and US officials regarding the US desire to have air bases and flight corridors for surveillance against the possible resurgence of anti-US terrorism from Afghan soil or indeed the broader region. The US Charge d’ Affairs Angela Aggeler met COAS General Qamar Javed Bajwa twice in a month. As is the norm, the ISPR statement regarding such meetings is so general as to reveal nothing of substance. In the past fortnight or so, US Secretary of State Antony Blinken called Foreign Minister Shah Mahmood Qureshi, the National Security Advisers of both countries met in Geneva, and reportedly there have been several other unannounced contacts. The probable agenda that emerges from reports consists of two elements, inextricably intertwined. One, the US desire for air bases and corridors in Pakistan (preferably) or other countries in the region. Two, the broader US-Pakistan relationship post-withdrawal. On the first, General Frank McKenzie, chief of the US Central Command, in congressional testimony in April 2021 spilt the beans by saying a significant diplomatic effort is afoot to determine where the US will base its counterterrorism force in the region, although he admitted no such understanding exists at present. US Assistant Secretary Defence David F Helvey told the Senate Armed Services Committee that Pakistan has allowed overflight and access for monitoring terrorism in and around Afghanistan. A slight ambiguity surrounds the statement whether Helvey was referring to the past or the future, since the US-Pakistan relationship is not in the best of health after former US President Donald Trump accused Pakistan of playing a double game and cut off all security assistance, a situation that persists despite the Biden administration having taken office. These statements and the speculations they gave rise to prompted the Foreign Office and Foreign Minister Shah Mahmood Qureshi to categorically deny any US bases existed in Pakistan or would be allowed, in the name of safeguarding national interests and promoting the Afghan peace process. The Taliban have threatened any such move would be considered hostile.

It may be recalled that General (retd) Pervez Musharraf permitted the US invading/occupying forces in Afghanistan access through a land and air corridor to landlocked Afghanistan, later even allowing bases from which US drones and other aircraft operated. The air bases were taken back before Musharraf’s ouster, but the corridors continue, with their importance enhanced during the US troops withdrawal. Already, while that withdrawal is still in progress, the Taliban have been nibbling away at outposts of the Afghan government, triggering takeovers and surrenders that bring the Taliban closer to encirclement of the cities. These developments point clearly to the Taliban preparing for an all-out offensive once the last US forces leave. The US is less interested in the fate of the country it has devastated by its intervention and more in ensuring no repeat of 9/11 becomes possible. The desire for bases and corridors is aimed, first and foremost, to ensure this through surveillance. The second motivation may be listening posts for the broader region, up to and including Russia and China. However, Pakistan has only negative memories of hosting US bases, stretching as far back as Badaber. Times have changed, and Pakistani official and citizens’ opinion seems set against a repeat of such compromise of national sovereignty at the behest of Washington. Pakistan’s dilemma at present is to ensure power-sharing rather than exclusive Taliban control of Afghanistan, which may trigger a fresh civil war, refugee inflows, and a destabilisation of the region that could have serious economic, political and security consequences. At the same time, after the US defeat in Afghanistan, critical to which has been Pakistan’s support to the Taliban, fence-mending is being attempted to placate Washington and restore US economic and security-related largesse. This is currently the national interest bottom line, with a balance being attempted between US-Pakistan and China-Pakistan ties. No easy task/s.