No point in blaming the IMF - Part II

More from Dr Meekal Aziz Ahmed (NEWS) A word about privatisation about which Mr Raza Rumi talks as through it was an unmitigated evil. Personally I have no strong views about privatisation but it is appropriate in some cases. Is there any reason why we steadfastly refuse to privatise PIA? None, except there won’t be jobs for the boys and all those freebees PIA staff, the defence ministry and the Civil Aviation Authority boys enjoy in those new slumber seats, bumping revenue passengers off the plane. Mr Rumi must have noticed that the first thing new governments do when they take power is to announce that PIA will not be privatised.
He resents the thought that the IMF will monitor the programme closely. Why shouldn’t it? The IMF does that everywhere with countries that use its resources, and in accordance with well-accepted procedures. They have a full-time resident representative office in Islamabad, established at our request and with our approval, and we are obliged to provide all data the IMF may need which is pertinent to monitoring the performance of the adjustment programme.
Let me mention a point with which I completely agree with him. This is with regard to open debate on the programme in the Senate and the National Assembly. I fully concur with this suggestion. Indeed, I would go further and suggest that the Letter of Intent that Pakistan signs with the IMF on the programme should be published in newspapers and talked about in the media, academia, and so forth. Shaukat Aziz published all programme documents under great protest when he realised there was no option and the IMF would not yield. This practice should be continued. But publication and open discussion will be strenuously avoided because the boys in the ministry of finance who, along with the State Bank, are the key players in the negotiations with the IMF, prefer to keep the programme under wraps, so that no one knows what has been agreed to and how much we may have compromised our room for economic manoeuvring. Worse still, the line ministries, on whose behalf policy commitments have been made, have no idea what is expected of them, because they were never consulted nor involved in programme negotiations. Nothing empowers the bureaucrat like secrets.
Conspicuous by its absence in his article is any mention by Mr Rumi of tax revenues. Since he thinks cutting spending is a bad thing, I would have thought he might concentrate on boosting tax revenues. I had hoped he would have vigorously argued the case for meaningful taxation on agriculture incomes, the stock market and the rich barons of real estate. I am sure he will agree that broadening the tax base to include sectors which are exempt and/or under-taxed might not be a bad idea and is, in fact, long overdue.
The fact that one million people out of one hundred and sixty five million in Pakistan don’t pay income tax might also deserve some critical scrutiny. Of those who do pay income tax, probably all, except government servants, under-file. We might have a look at that too.
Without such aggressive base-broadening, the hope of raising the tax/GDP ratio to 15 percent, as Mr Tareen says, will remain a pipe dream. The IMF will want, and has always wanted, Pakistan to tax all the sectors I have mentioned above in the interest of equity. They have always wanted Pakistan to get rid of all the concessions and exemptions we give to the rich and powerful. We, on our part, have and will continue to resist all of this fiercely, trotting out one lame excuse after another about “ground realities.”
The IMF should make an assessment of the likely yield from these revenue-enhancing measures. It should also quantify the cuts on the spending side, with no exceptions and no “holy cows.” The IMF should put this all together in an adjustment programme and make sure we collect these taxes and cut the spending we have promised. If the Pakistani authorities refuse, or are disinclined to proceed this way, the IMF should tell them there will be no bailout, and walk away. For once, the Pakistani government may be frightened into implementing serious fiscal reforms and stop pussyfooting around.
During programme implementation, if there are egregious, unsubstantiated revenue or spending deviations, the IMF should abandon the programme and go back to Washington, not keep resetting the targets and letting us off the hook. If the IMF plays tough, and does not back down, Pakistan will have no choice but to do the right thing. For too long it has been the other way round. The IMF has patiently listened to our long-winded explanations of why we cannot do the right thing, and has then backed down. This has to change.
How rapid should the adjustment be? This is an issue that worries Mr Rumi.
It is a fair question. Since we are dealing with economics and not a controlled experiment in physics, the pace of adjustment can only be a matter of judgment and careful consideration of what is doable. It stands to reason that a less steep downward trajectory of adjustment, which Mr Rumi would like to see, will take more time to correct our unsustainable imbalances and bring inflation down. It will simply prolong the agony of returning the economy to a more stable path.
A sharper adjustment would yield quicker results but will be more painful.
Finding the right balance between these two extremes involves a bit of fine-tuning and guesswork which economists are not very good at. They always seem to get it wrong but we can hope for the best.
Will all this adjustment affect growth and exacerbate unemployment and poverty? Of course it will. As usual, it is the poor, the unemployed and the impoverished who will suffer the most for the profligacy and irresponsibility of the rich. This is not something new. Yet, one can only hope the growth slowdown will be short-lived, the economy will quickly stabilise, and the conditions will be propitious for an economic upswing, supported by a cautious and judicious loosening of macroeconomic policies.
On the question of the short-term impact of adjustment on growth, let me mention one point that our policymakers don’t seem to get. Early and timely adjustment is always preferable and can be expected to have a mild impact on growth and employment. The longer you wait and the more serious the economic situation becomes, the more drastic the measures you need to take and the greater are the sacrifices in terms of growth. Is this so difficult to understand?
We have procrastinated for six months over whether we should have an adjustment programme or not, with or without the IMF, clinging to some misplaced notion of national pride and protecting our economic sovereignty.
Finally, a last point. Mr Rumi thinks wistfully of the Chinese, Iranian, and Saudi handout route so that we can stay away from the clutches of the IMF. He cannot be serious. No one is going to dish out money to Pakistan without some assurance that it will be spent well and within the framework of some sort of economic reform programme. I think we need to put this flawed idea to rest which has been such a letdown and caused us great embarrassment.
Let me conclude by saying that I have argued for three decades in government service and in the IMF that Pakistan should make its own adjustment programme and present it to the IMF for financing. It should be our programme. In truth, we have never done this, except superficially, and I cannot understand why.
I suspect it is a combination of laziness, not caring, and technical incompetence. After all, our best and brightest economists, sadly, stay away from government.
(Concluded)
The writer has a doctorate from Oxford University and has worked at the Planning Commission and the IMF

Open Letter to President Zardari from Women’s Action Forum

 
Mr. Asif Ali Zardari
President of Pakistan
Mr. President, we request you to recall the legacy of Mohtarima Shaheed Benazir Bhutto and her tireless efforts to improve the lot of Pakistani women, towards the goal of women’s empowerment and gender equality.
Khawateen Mahaz-e-Amal (Women’s Action Forum - WAF) Pakistan expresses its extreme concern at the following recent events and reported Government moves, which have gravely negative implications for Pakistani women.
WAF Pakistan is shocked, horrified and outraged at the appointment of Senator Mir Israrullah Zehri as a federal Minister. This is the man who is on record as having actually defended the barbaric and inhuman crime of burying women alive as “a traditional custom”. Zehri also threatened, on the floor of the Senate, Senator Yasmin Shah, who had the courage to speak out against the heinous crime. WAF is of the opinion that such beliefs reflect a blatant flouting with impunity of Pakistani law, according to which this heinous crime is murder with premeditated intent – a cognizable and non-bailable offence, which carries strong punishments. It is also a violation of the 1973 Constitution and the teachings of Islam.

WAF Pakistan is outraged that despite evidence demonstrating the involvement of Sattar Umrani and Fateh Muhammad Umrani (PPP Balochistan stalwarts) in these killings, the Acting Chairman of the Senate, Senator Jan Muhammad Jamali refused to condemn the killings, and the police investigating this case appears to have reached unsatisfactory conclusions. WAF salutes the brave local reporters who brought this news to public attention, as well as the national media and civil society activists following it up. We are extremely concerned to note that they are now receiving open threats, and we call upon you and your Government to provide them effective protection.
WAF Pakistan further condemns the appointment of Mir Hazar Khan Bijarani as a federal Minister, and then being given the all-important portfolio of Education. Please recall that Mr. Bijarani is the MNA who headed a jirga in 2006, which made the decision to give as compensation 5 little girls (aged 2-5 years) to settle a feud between two warring tribes. Hearings about this crime even went up to the Supreme Court. Despite assertions to the contrary, WAF is in factual possession of documentary evidence.
Such a person as Mr. Bijarani is not fit to head the Ministry of Education, as he cannot understand the need to ensure equal educational opportunities for girls, or to develop and implement progressive education policies and programmes or forward-looking curricula.

We strongly condemn these two appointments and request you to revoke them.
A Minister for Women’s Development has not yet been appointed. WAF is strongly opposed to the consideration of appointment of a JUI/F candidate or any other conservative individual for such a sensitive portfolio. You have a number of good options for this post. There are many committed and progressive individuals, such as Senator Rukhsana Zuberi, and MNAs Ms. Fauzia Habib, Ms. Nafisa Shah, Ms. Bushra Gohar, who understand, subscribe to and advocate gender justice, equality and women’s human rights.
Mr. President, we recommend that you kindly re-read the PPP and the JUI/F Election Manifesto sections on Women, before you decide to allocate the Ministry of Women’s Development portfolio to JUI/F or any other conservative party or individual. Just to quote a couple of excerpts from the PPP manifesto: (1) “We promise to give high priority to empowerment of women and ensure their equal rights” (p.2); (2) “The PP commits to its sons and daughters of Pakistan an education system that enables a brighter future than that of their parents” (p.11); (3) “The Party will take institutional initiatives to prevent crimes against Women in the name of tribalism, such as honour-killings and forced marriages” (p.13).
WAF Pakistan reiterates its support for, and expresses solidarity with all those Ministers and Advisors you have appointed, who are progressive, forward-looking and committed to women’s rights, such as Ms. Sherry Rahman, Ms. Shahnaz Wazir Ali, Ms. Shazia Marri, Ms. Sassui Palejo, Ms. Tauqir Fatima Bhutto, Ms. Farzana Raja, and others like them. WAF welcomes Sherry Rahman’s statement of Nov12 reiterating PPP’s commitment to women’s empowerment.
In view of the gender equality enshrined in Article 25 (and several others) of the 1973 Constitution, and of Pakistan’s legally binding commitment to international instruments, including the UN Charter of Human Rights, CEDAW and CRC, as well as Pakistan’s acceptance of the challenges of the MDGs (2000-2015), it is imperative that the Minister for Women’s Development be a progressive, forward-looking human rights advocate and worker, with a demonstrated track record.
We sincerely hope that you will urgently address the above concerns, and that you will respond to and take action on this letter in the positive and constructive spirit in which it is written.
Yours truly,
WAF Pakistan

Sugar Mill Scam?

Dawn newspaper published a very concerning report where Senators were reportedly hurling accusations of corruption in regards to the sale of two Sugar Mills, in the midst of the controversy was Jamal Leghari, son of former president Farooq Ahmed Khan Leghari who was also defending Dewan Yousuf. Mr. Leghari brought to the attention of the Senate whereby Larkana Sugar Mills was given a hefty loan of Rs350 million without collateral & the sale of Dadu Sugar Mills for a paltry Rs90 million to a ‘front man’ while the previous government had rejected a bid Rs420 million bid for the mills

DAWN: Senate stunned by exposé of sugar mills scam
By Ahmed Hassan
ISLAMABAD: The Senate on Thursday was stunned by the revelations made by two PML-Q lawmakers about what they termed as the biggest ever sugar mills scam taking place in Sindh province. Interestingly, no one from the treasury side came out to defend or reject the allegations made by the opposition senators.
Jamal Leghari, the son of former president Farooq Ahmed Khan Leghari in a very harsh voice demanded of the concerned authorities to tell as to who had summoned renowned industrialist Dewan Yousuf recently and ordered him to surrender three of his sugar mills. Leghari left the background or what Dewan Yousuf replied to the demand for a guessing by the lawmakers.
He also demanded that ‘This house wants to know as to how Larkana Sugar Mills was released a hefty loan amounting to Rs.350 million without signing collateral documents. He also questioned the sell out of Dadu sugar mills for paltry Rs.90 million to a ‘front man’ which the previous government had rejected a bid amounting to Rs.420 million for the same mills.
Leghari also claimed that the privatization of Qadirpur Gas Fields was first initiated by the Benazir Bhutto government during its stint in power 1993-1996 but the then president (his father) had intervened and blocked the deal before being made.
Now again when the same party is in power although its chairperson is no more at the helm has once again sprung up to sell of this field for the reasons best known to them’ he quipped, adding it was good that the prime minister had reversed the decision at least for the time being. He said if the government was true to its statements about energy security issue then it should also know that Qadirpur was a very valuable national energy asset which needs to be protected from handing over to a private party. Earlier, Bibi Yasmeen Shah of the same party had also agitated the sell off of Dadu sugar mills at throwaway price while she also revealed the release of the loan worth Rs.350 million to Larkana Sugar Mills within two hours on a single letter from some high authority.
Leghari revealed that the said loan was released without any resistance by the National Bank of Pakistan Awari Tower branch when the concerned bank officer Bhindari was told in plain words that ‘collateral papers’ were lying in Zardari House which may be reached if any one dare to.
He said a junior bank officer Bhindari when telephoned to one Anwar Majeed to ask for first signing of the collateral documents he was told that the papers were in Zardari house which can be perused any time. After this hidden threat, he asserted the loan was released without resistance.

Im quite sure there is much to be explored and reported in-between the lines and it would be interesting to read the other side. Anyone care to shed light on this brewing controversy

Lal Masjid of Bradistan

by Dilnawaz This Lal Masjid (Red mosque), actually a converted old Victorian church, built (originally) in Yorkshire stone is just like the inconspicuous buildings lining the Leeds road Bradford moor, an area famous for posh Asian restaurants competing with wimslow road Manchester for the title of curry capital of the north.
But I am talking about this “red mosque on Bradford moor” ,which looks like any other mosque in Bradford, is no ordinary mosque, certainly not like the RED MOSQUE IN ISLAMABAD. The high security door, wired and reinforced windows are unlike the other mosques in Bradford. Not so long ago, actually just before 9/11 when usama bin laden had not attained his current cult celebrity status, some hot headed young Muslim (born again Tableeghi-read evangelical ) lads used to pump up the music while passing this “Red mosque” their car stereos deafening the street with anthems “ Islam’s hero number one, my leader usa-ma bin laden” just to annoy the gate keeper and the administration of the mosque, but other than that isolated incident this red mosque perfectly integrated into Bradford muslim community, no one can tell the difference between those who visit this “red mosque” or other mainstream mosques in Bradford.
The muslim community does not discriminate against those who worship at this Red mosque. Their common cultural, linguistic reference remains Pakistani Punjabi /mirpuri. their relations ,marriage ceremonies and eid celebrations remain focal point of the community.
Before one might be tempted to think that I am talking about “shia” sect, which is constantly in news in iraq and Pakistan, suffering the attacks perpetrated by “terrorist” clan of wahabi (loyalist Paramilitary of Saudi Royals) and Al qaeda operatives, I am not. its another story how supposedly sworn enemies namely bin laden construction crew and al saud clan with its kick backs of defence deals that stretch from Thatcher to blairite era, can cooperate in iraq and Pakistan to pursue the evil agenda of purifying the muslim world of “infidel” shias and Iranian influence.
Well in bradistan shia are not considered a minority they are part of the mainstream. Contrary to what BNP and NF websites propagate; bradistan is a culturally vibrant, ethnically diverse, and socially more integrated than some other cities of the UK.
Getting back to original discussion about “Red mosque”, which belongs to a religious minority within ethnic minority? Ahmadiyya religious sect, who like the African American “nation of Islam” believe in their own messiah prophet, are being persecuted in their native Pakistan for their non-mainstream religious beliefs. Ahmediya community have found a safe haven in UK and bradistan, the fellow Pakistanis have welcomed them with open hearts despite religious differences. The community now runs a 24 hour satellite channel broadcasting their religious programmes world wide which even the Pakistani government cannot block off airwaves, local community leader Mr Bari Malik a former magistrate is a prominent Pakistani representative in local government and charities in Yorkshire.
While back home in Pakistan they fear prosecution in courts because of performing muslim prayer rituals or identifying themselves with muslim names. Punishments under the anti –ahmadiyya ordinance promulgated by military dictator general zia ul haq in 1984 range from 3 years(for Islamic ritual) to death penalty for blasphemy.
Although Ahmediya community themselves practice a ultra orthodox set of beliefs and believe in 19th century Punjabi- British civil servant turned messiah- folklore prophet, but at same time gave Pakistani nation some of the most renowned international celebrities, like the only Nobel laureate that Pakistan produced Dr Abdul Salam who revolutionised the world of physics by discovering the “weak force theory”.

http://dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=20076\27\story_27-6-2007_pg7_12
Dr Salam and many war heroes who sacrificed their lives for Pakistani defense forces and pakistan’s first foreign minister sir zafarullah khan and their legacies were officially Disowned by the state after enacting that draconian law of religious bigotry. surprise surprise the current “enlightened “ modernist Dictator Pervaiz musharraf could not find time even in past seven years to strike the draconian law off the statute books. Its Ironical that the head of pro Taliban mma alliance in parliament and opposition leader in pakistan Mualana Fazal ur Rehman undergoing angioplasty after a heart attack insisted on being treated by one of the world’s best heart surgeons Dr Mubashar Ahmed – a Pakistani expatriate , a Ahmadi by religion. Fazal Ul rehman and his late father mufti mehmood were instrumental in forcing the state to declare Ahmadiyya as non muslim, sometimes its takes medical science to tear the layers of discrimination and bigotry , I hope Mualana at least sends a thank you note to his doctor after recovery.
Sometimes at summer melas lads weaving Pakistani flags and wearing their Burberry designer hooded tops chant “proud to be Bradistani”

Maulana Fazl ur Rahman - Taleban Mentor

Intikhab Amir

Maulana Fazal-ur-Rahman is one of the few amongst the political leaders of Pakistan, who, in addition to the countrywide large public support, wields quite an influence across the borders. The Taliban movement inside Afghanistan, which is considered to be the creation of the madressahs run by Maulana Fazal-ur-Rahman's faction of the Jamiat-i-Ulema-i-Islam (JUI), has restored his political importance within Pakistan. The amount of influence wielded by the JUI on the Taliban due to its capacity to raise battalions of fighters has given a new dimension to his politics. The Taliban phenomenon, overwhelmingly accepted in areas already influenced by religious thoughts, specially the southern districts of the NWFP, the majority areas of FATA and pockets in Balochistan, has given a boost to the popularity graph of the JUI in these regions.
The hundreds of Madressahs run by the Maulana's religio-political JUI in all the four provinces of the country and in FATA provide him and his party the fuel for electioneering politics.
The JUI's hard core supporters in the rural areas of the NWFP and some of the Pakhtoon dominated areas of Balochistan besides the party's ability to utilize the strength of its Madressahs in elections politics give the JUI an eminence over all the other religio-political parties of the country.
Capitalizing on the political line of action that he inherited from his father, Maulana Mufti Mahmood, Fazalur Rahman's anti-secular politics and opposition to successive military governments equally played an important role in maintaining his public standing at a certain level.
He set up his own faction of JUI after parting ways with the undivided JUI, led by Maulana Darkhawsti, over the issue of extending support to the military regime of General Ziaul Haq. Although the JUI had been a part of the PNA in bringing about the overthrow of Bhutto, it later decided to go against the military regime and actively participated in the Movement for Restoration of Democracy (MRD).
JUI's stand against the sitting military government is in continuation of the party's line of action, which it adopted against the Zia regime. His father, Maulana Mufti Mahmood, who was a graduate from the Darul Uloom, Deoband, set the basis for Fazalur Rahman's political expediency.
Being from a renowned religious family of the Abdulkhel Banyala area, in Dera Ismail Khan district, Maulana Fazalur Rahman inherited from his father mass public support from their native area.
Of all the four general elections that Fazalur Rahman contested since 1988 from his native D.I.Khan's national assembly constituency, NA-18, he won two with convincing margins.
And the two he lost - in 1990 and 1997 - were, as his supporters put it, more because of the engineered results that entrusted heavy mandates to the Sharifs of Lahore on both the occasions.
It was because of the family's mass public support and large vote bank in the D.I.Khan constituency that Maulana Mufti Mahmood was the lone leader in Pakistan who had defeated the then invincible Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto in the 1970 general elections.
Later, ZAB dismissed the Maulana Mufti Mahmood led-JUI/NAP coalition government in the NWFP (apart from the coalition government of the two parties in Balochistan) after developing political differences with them.
Maulana Fazlur Rahman's politics, like his father's, has been at odds with the Muslim League. The father was in Jama'at Ulema-i-Hind (Madani group) which shared the views of the Congress on the partition issue.
Fazalur Rahman remained in the camp of the political alliances and parties that were opposed to Nawaz Sharif's League. Only once did he contest the election in alliance with the PML, in 1990, and then too he lost.
However, unlike his father Maulana Mufti Mahmood who earned fame by defeating ZAB in 1970, Fazalur Rahman built his public image by supporting ZAB's daughter Benazir Bhutto during her second stint as the prime minister. His cooperation with the PPP to some extent diminished temporarily his party's image of an anti-secular religio-political entity. His involvement in some financial scandals, specially the charges levelled against him of supplying permits for exporting diesel from Pakistan to Afghanistan, also threw a blot on the party's reputation

“Maulana” Fazlul Rehman given second life by an Ahmadi

“مولانا کا احمدی حضرات کا ”بائيکاٹ

“Maulana” Fazlul Rehman needs no introduction to Pakistanis. He appears as a religious scholar of sort however no one has witnessed this scholarship as yet. He is renowned more for his political jugglery.
Recently Maulana had a heart trouble and needed angioplasty. The operation was carried out successfully in a private hospital in Lahore by Dr Mubashar Ahmad who came especially from US for this purpose.  Ironically Dr Mubashar Ahmad is an Ahmadi! Here (in Urdu) is the news that puts it this way;

“وہ (يعنی مولانا) ایک ایسی جماعت کے سربراہ ہیں جو احمدیوں کے خلاف مہم چلانے والوں میں پیش پیش ہے لیکن وہ اپنا علاج اسی مسلک سے تعلق رکھنے والے معالج سے کراسکتے ہیں۔”

Maulana who would not accept Ahmadis at ”Qaleedee” (key) posts in Pakistan is quite happy to entrust his own life in the hands of an Ahmadi. Also Maulana who would normally advocate boycotting Ahamdis in every sphere, is in no mood of boycotting this Ahmadi when Maulana’s own benefit is involved. Lucky for the doctor, Maulana survived…or it would have been another Qadiani conspiracy.

The 2008 Global Cities Index

The Mayors of the Moment

Page 4 of 8

The Mayors of the Moment

No city globalizes on its own. But with shrewd investments and smart urban planning, a mayor can help turn a regional player into a global powerhouse. Here’s how three of the world’s top mayors are climbing the ladder:

---

Klaus Wowereit Mayor of Berlin (#17)

The concept of the global city isn’t lost on Klaus Wowereit. Since taking office in 2001, the popular, 55-year-old mayor of Berlin has tied his fate to rebranding the city as a glamorous, artistic model of urban renewal. And Berlin’s reputation has thrived as a vibrant, tolerant, creative metropolis under his watch. Wowereit cites the construction of a gigantic international airport, the successful 2006 World Cup, and a cultural festival called “Asia-Pacific Weeks” as landmark accomplishments. His critics claim that he focuses more on the city’s image than its crumbling infrastructure or budget shortfalls. “We are poor but sexy,” admits Wowereit. A fun fantasy it may be, but Berliners will probably only be willing to play the starving artist for so long.

---

Syed Mustafa Kamal Mayor of Karachi (#57)

The new mayor of Karachi is an unlikely poster child for innovative urban planning. The 36-year-old Syed Mustafa Kamal governs a city that’s more often in the news for religious violence than cosmopolitan ways. But the hard-charging Kamal is looking to change all that. He’s courting foreign investment, encouraging international ties, and boosting the city’s tourism. Kamal isn’t shy about his goals: He has said he wants to turn Karachi into the “next Dubai.” His Green Karachi project aims to plant thousands of trees in the city. No stranger to Karachi’s bare-knuckled politics, Kamal isn’t letting anything stand in the way of his grand plans: He has threatened to arrest anyone who tries to cut down the new saplings.

---

Wang Hongju Mayor of Chongqing (#59)

Think Michael Bloomberg has his hands full? Wang Hongju is mayor of the fastest-growing city on the planet, one whose metropolitan area is already bursting at 32 million—more than the population of Iraq. But Wang isn’t letting China’s urban revolution happen under his feet. He has been known to collect advice from citizens (for cash rewards), from mayors of sister cities such as Toronto, and even from the works of Thomas Friedman. Wang has sought heavy foreign investment, which his administration says has topped a whopping $3 billion in the past five years. In 2005, he claimed his antipoverty programs had helped 3 million Chongqing residents rise out of poverty in the previous eight years. Wang rarely shies from reporters’ questions, even about hot-button topics such as Tibet or SARS. His approach, a stark departure from Communist Chinese officials of old, has made the 63-year-old Wang the face of a new breed of Chinese mayors.

© Copyright 2008, A.T. Kearney, Inc., The Chicago Council on Global Affairs, and Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive, LLC. All rights reserved. A.T. Kearney is a registered service mark of A.T. Kearney, Inc. Foreign Policy and its logo are registered trademarks owned by Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive, a subsidiary of The Washington Post Company.

The 2008 Global Cities Index Chinapolis

Page 6 of 8

Chinapolis

It’s the most rapidly urbanizing country on the planet. More than 170 mass-transit systems are slated for construction by 2025. And by 2030, the country could count more than 1 billion people among its city dwellers. So, when we talk about urbanization and the ways in which cities are growing, China can’t be ignored. The statistics are staggering: While the United States has nine cities with a million or more people, China has nearly 100. Five are featured in the index (as well as Hong Kong), with Beijing topping its Chinese neighbors, at 12th place, and Chongqing rounding out the bottom, at 59th. Their mixed performances prove that even cities that develop thanks to the heavy-handed dictates of a central government can follow their own unique paths.

Beijing (#12)

Population: 11.1 million

Population in 2025: 14.5 million

Claim to Fame: China’s cultural, educational, and political capital. Host of the 2008 Summer Olympics and now home to the world’s largest airport.

Major Industries: Government, tourism, chemicals, electronics, textiles

GDP per capita: $9,237

No. of Days to Start a Business: 37

Roadblocks to Growth: Pollution, dust storms, avoiding a post-Olympic slowdown, overcrowding.

Shanghai (#20)

Population: 15 million

Population in 2025: 19.4 million

Claim to Fame: The country’s economic capital

Major Industries: Banking, finance, fashion, electronics, shipbuilding

GDP per capita: $9,584

No. of Days to Start a Business: 35

Roadblocks to Development: Danger of a bursting economic bubble, replenishing energy supplies, a slowdown in the global economy, traffic.

Guangzhou (#52)

Population: 8.4 million

Population in 2025: 11.8 million

Claim to Fame: The largest and wealthiest city in the south. An important seaport and connection to the rest of the world.

Major Industries: Automobiles, petrochemicals, electronics, telecom, shipbuilding

GDP per capita: $9,970

No. of Days to Start a Business: 28

Roadblocks to Development: Crime, traffic, wide gaps between the rich and the poor, clashes between migrants and locals.

Shenzhen (#54)

Population: 7.2 million

Population in 2025: 10.2 million

Claim to Fame: Shenzhen has seen the most rapid growth among all China’s cities. At some points in the past 30 years, it grew at 40 percent a year.

Major Industries: IT, software, construction, food processing, medical supplies

GDP per capita: $11,445

No. of Days to Start a Business: Around 30

Roadblocks to Development: Traffic, high rates of HIV/AIDS, labor unrest.

Chongqing (#59)

Population: 6.4 million

Population in 2025: 7.3 million (2015)

Claim to Fame: Often called the “Chinese Chicago,” the city is an industrial center and gateway to China’s western regions.

Major Industries: Mining, automobiles, textiles, chemicals, manufacturing

GDP per capita: $5,500

No. of Days to Start a Business: 39

Roadblocks to Development: Air pollution, potential of landslides, drought.

Do you know who is sitting in?

Do you know who is sitting in?
 
The Highest Position of the World?!  
 
U.S President   ?
۔
۔
۔
۔
۔


NO
۔
۔
۔
۔
۔
۔
۔

Osama Bin Laden?
۔
۔
۔
۔
۔
۔
۔

NO
۔
۔
۔
۔
۔
۔
۔

UN General Secretary?
۔
۔
۔
۔
۔
۔

NO
۔
۔
۔
۔
۔
۔
۔

Pope Benedict?
۔
۔
۔
۔
۔
۔
۔
۔

NO
۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔

۔۔۔۔
۔
۔
۔
۔

I Will Tell You
۔۔۔
۔
۔
۔۔
۔
۔


But Please
۔۔۔۔۔۔۔
۔۔۔۔
۔۔
۔
۔
۔
۔

Don't   Wonder

How General Zia has sabotaged lawyers’ movement from grave

November 11, 2008...1:47 pm

By Abbas Zaidi

When General Musharraf deposed Ifitikhar Chaudhry, the Chief Justice of Pakistan, on 9 March 2007, he did not realize there would be such an endless and widespread chain of protests all over the country. It was for the first time in Pakistan’s history that a judge had defied a general’s orders by deciding a few cases on merit, i.e., against a dictator’s wish and in the common man’s interest. It was the unprecedented power of the popular protest that led to the restoration of Justice Chaudhry four months later in July 2007. But General Musharraf did not accept the return of the Chief Justice, and on 3 November 2007 he imposed martial law in Pakistan and deposed Justice Chaudhry. It was a unique martial law in the political history of the world because it was directed only against the person of Justice Chaudhry. All the other institutions of Pakistan-e.g., the cabinet and the parliament-remained untouched. . . .

Although General Musharraf has been consigned to the gutter where his predecessors-General Zia being the wickedest and most notorious of the pack-Justice Chaudhry still has not been restored to his rightful office. The present democratically government is reluctant to restore him because it claims that he has become controversial by aligning himself with politicians, and hence his impartiality is suspect. Like millions of Pakistanis, I believe that the restoration of Justice Chaudhry is an act of faith to me. He, I believe, stands for freedom in Pakistan-freedom in the widest sense of the word. If he is not restored, judiciary in Pakistan will continue to remain subservient to generals, bureaucrats, and politicians. So when the leaders of the Pakistan Supreme Court Bar Association announced that Justice Chaudhry would deliver a speech at a lawyers’ meeting in Rawalpindi on 3 November to mark the first anniversary of his sacking, I could not wait to hear the man who has been a hero, a savior indeed, to the people of Pakistan.

I cancelled all my engagements in order to sit in front of TV and watch the man who is no less than a prophet in these times. He began his speech by telling people how his refusal to kowtow to General Musharraf led to his sacking. Around fifteen minutes into his speech, there was a little disturbance behind him. He stopped briefly and looked behind. The disturbance continued for a couple of minutes and then two faces emerged and I heard myself say: “O, shit!” At that very moment I found myself agreeing to the government’s claim that the movement for the restoration of Ifitikhar Chaudhry was actually a front for the agenda of some time-serving politicians. Why?

For an answer you need to know the two faces I have mentioned above. The two faces were: Raja Zafar ul Haq and Justice (retired) Ghous Ali Shah. They are two top leaders of Nawaz Sharif’s Pakistan Muslim League (PML), the former being the Chairman of the PML. It not just their affiliation with the PML which is a red rag to anyone who believes in human rights, natural justice, and democracy, but their blatant and shameless alignment with General Zia who for eleven years (1977-88) played havoc with every civilian institution in Pakistan. Today if Pakistan is called world’s most dangerous country by the likes of Newsweek and Economist, the (dis)honor goes to General Zia and his team of army officers and politicians. Given the nature of this article, it is not possible to narrate the misdeeds of the Ziaists, but one can be reminded of one a coupe of important incidents: General Zia made Raja Zafar ul Haq Pakistan’s minister of information (Those days my friends and I as young, progressive students spending our nights in Old Anarkali’s Café Munir used to call it “the ministry of disinformation and falsehood”.). General Zia called him “the opening batsman of my team” and Raja Zafar ul Haq proudly owned and advertised the title. Imagine what respect “the opening batsman” of an extremely bloody and heinous martial law can have!

A word about Justice Shah. He was so beloved a protégé of Zia’s that the latter used his special exception-making powers to benefit him. In Pakistan a government official can enter politics only two years after they have retired (or quit) their job. But the dictator appointed Justice Shah the chief minister of the province of Sindh within twenty-four hours after he retired as the chief justice of the Sindh High Court. Did Justice Shah land in the prized job for his love of human rights? There have been countless things said about Justice Shah’s doings under the wings of martial law, and I leave it for another article that I will certainly write about him in future.

But there are many more characters than these two Ziaists who have afflicted the lawyers’ movement like a destructive virus. In July 2008 thousands of lawyers and general public gathered in Islamabad to voice their support for Justice Chaudhry. It was a peaceful, decent gathering in which the leaders of the lawyers made a very powerful case for the restoration of Justice Chaudhry. But when the last speaker took over, the entire event turned sour. The speaker was no other than Nawaz Sharif himself who unleashed a mouthful of demagoguery. Nawaz Sharif was the most cherished blue-eyed boy of General Zia. He was handpicked by a brigadier and given a ministry. Later General Zia made him Punjab’s chief minister. One of the memorable displays of Nawaz Sharif’s respect for democracy came when he cheered General Zia for dissolving Pakistan’s elected parliament in May 1988. During Nawaz Sharif’s stint as Pakistan’s prime minister the Supreme Court was invaded by his party-men forcing the judges to flee. Pakistanis have certainly not forgotten that the attack took place because Justice Sajjad Ali, the then Chief Justice, had summoned Nawaz Sharif for contempt of court, and it seemed likely to many people and commentators that he would be charged. A few hours after the Supreme Court invasion, Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif appeared on TV and spoke to the benefit of everyone’s ear that the people of Pakistan had elected him to “serve” them, and not to make rounds to a court.

If you take a look at the lawyers’ rallies, the most visible presence is of those fundamentalist religious parties who were carefully nurtured and empowered by General Zia. The most significant of them is Jamat-e-Islami, whose support of Zia’s barbaric misrule was matchless. Jamat-e-Islami was the greatest beneficiary of Zia’s martial law and was given key ministries by him. For example, Jamat’s Professor Khursheed who never tires of harping on the will of the people was Pakistan’s Deputy Chairman Planning under Zia, the highest civilian post. One classic example of Jamat-e-Islami’s traditional hypocrisy and duplicity can be cited here for everyone’s benefit: In 2002 it was this very party which, along with other religious parties, voted General Musharraf into presidency for five years. This vote was not an ordinary feat: it allowed General Musharraf to continue to be Pakistan’s president and the chief of the army staff at the same time, a rare landmark in the history of democracy. And this very Jamat-e-Islami is “protesting” General Musharraf’s “illegal”, as the Jamat-e-Islami leaders dub it, sacking. The Jamat-e-Islami leaders must be laughing all the way during the protest procession on the stupidity and amnesia of those who have allowed them to be part of the lawyers’ movement.

More examples can be given, but the point is: the lawyers’ movement has been hijacked by those politicians whose very appearance brings extremely painful memories of a time remembered for its barbarities, murders, and total disregard for human rights. These politicians have never been able to form government through fair elections because the people of Pakistan have always rejected them. Benazir Bhutto called them “Zia’s remnants”. Another Zia remnant made his presence felt on 3 November 2008 not through his presence, but through the placards that his supports were carrying in front of Justice Chaudhry’s house. The placard said: “The Act of 3 November Not Acceptable: General Hamid Gul”. General Gul amply showed his support and respect for democracy when in 1988, as a serving general and the chief of the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI), he spent millions of dollars on forming a political alliance of times servers, lightweights, nobodies, and carpetbaggers (actually all of them Zia’s remnants) to counter Benazir Bhutto’s People’s Party because he did not want her party to sweep the 1988 election. To his credit, he frankly and proudly owns his misdeed. Another rare distinction that General Gul has is that only days before her assassination, Benazir went on record saying that General Gul was one of the “Zia remnants” trying to kill her. Recently, he has been officially nominated as one of the three suspects in her assassination.

Many observers have claimed that some of the lawyers have taken a lot of money from politicians, especially Nawaz Sharif, and allowed them to take over their movement. Barrister Ahmed Raza Kasuri is also of the same opinion. I have no comment to make because I do not have any inside information. My own feeling is that the lawyers have been sincere, persistent, and brave throughout their movement for the restoration of Justice Chaudhry. However, it is surprising how this sharp-minded legal community has allowed itself to be used by Zia’s remnants whose pasts have nothing to prove their respect for justice and rule of law.

(Abbas Zaidi hellozaidi@gmail.com teaches English in Brunei Darussalam. His fiction and prose have appeared in New York Press, Exquisite Corpse, CounterPunch, The New Internationalist, The Salisbury Review, Arts and Opinion, Salt River Review, The Vocabula Review, Dawn, and many more. He regularly writes for American Chronicle. He is Asian Editor of New York-based ezine GOWANUS: www.gowanusbooks.com)

Jinnah's vision for Pakistan

MINORITIES
14 th July 1947:

Minorities to which ever community they might belong will be safeguarded. They will be in all respects the citizens of Pakistan without any distinction of caste or creed.

(New Dehli Press Conference)


25th October 1947:

Minorities DO NOT cease to be citizens. Minorities living in Pakistan or Hindustan do not cease to be citizens of their respective states by virtue of their belonging to particular faith, religion or race. I have repeatedly made it clear, especially in my opening speech to the constituent Assembley, that the minorities in Pakistan would be treated as our citizens and will enjoy all the rights as any other community. Pakistan SHALL pursue this policy and do all it can to create a sense of security and confidence in the Non-Muslim minorities of Pakistan. We do not prescribe any school boy tests for their loyalty. We shall not say to any Hindu citizen of Pakistan 'if there was war would you shoot a Hindu?'

(Quaid e Azam's interview with Reuters' Duncan Hooper note: not to be confused with his interview with Reuters' Doon Campbell which has been quoted in detail else where).

30th October 1947:

The tenets of Islam enjoin on every Musalman to give protection to his neighbours and to the Minorities regardless of caste and creed. We must make it a matter of our honor and prestige to create sense of security amongst them.

(To a Mass Rally at University Stadium Lahore)

Same Day (On Radio Pakistan):

Protection of Minorities is a sacred undertaking. (On Partition Massacres) Humanity cries out loud against this shameful conduct and deeds. The civilized world is looking upon these doings and happenings with horror and the fair name of the communities concerned stands blackened. Put an end to this ruthlessly and with an Iron hand.

17th December 1947:

I cannot in good conscience continue to be the president of a self avowedly communal organization and the Governor General of Pakistan at the same time.

( Last meeting of the All India Muslim league before it split into PML and IML)
PUTTING DOWN RIOTS
9th January 1948:

Muslims! Protect your Hindu Neighbours. Cooperate with the Government and the officials in protecting your Hindu Neighbours against these lawless elements, fifth columnists and cliques. Pakistan must be governed through the properly constituted Government and not by cliques or fifth columnists or Mobs.

(Tour of Riot affected areas of Karachi)
 
FREEDOM OF RELIGION, EQUALITY AND DEMOCRACY

25th January 1948:

I would like to tell those who are misled by propaganda that not only the Muslims but Non Muslims have nothing to fear. Islam and its idealism have taught us democracy. Islam has taught Equality, Justice and fairplay to everybody. What reason is there for anyone to fear

Democracy, equality, freedom on the highest sense of integrity and on the basis of fairplay and justice for everyone. Let us make the constitution of Pakistan. We will make it and we will show it to the world.

(Address to the Karachi Bar association on the occasion of Eid Milad un Nabi)

3rd February 1948:

I assure you Pakistan means to stand by its oft repeated promises of according equal rights to all its nationals irrespective of their caste or creed. Pakistan which symbolizes the aspirations of a nation that found it self to be a minority in the Indian subcontinent cannot be UNMINDFUL of minorities within its own borders. It is a pity that the fairname of Karachi was sullied by the sudden outburst of communal frenzy last month and I can't find words strong enough to condemn the action of those who are responsible.

(Address to the Parsi Community of Sindh)

21st March 1948:

Let me take this opportunity of repeating what I have already said : We shall treat the minorities in Pakistan fairly and justly. We shall maintain peace, law and order and protect and safeguard every citizen of Pakistan without any distinction of caste, creed or community.

(Mass Rally at Dacca)

22nd March 1948:

We guarantee equal rights to all citizens of Pakistan. Hindus should in spirit and action wholeheartedly co-operate with the Government and its various branches as Pakistanis.

(Meeting with Hindu Legislators)

23rd March 1948:

We stand by our declarations that members of every community will be treated as citizens of Pakistan with equal rights and privileges and obligations and that Minorities will be safeguarded and protected.

(Meeting with the 'Scheduled Caste Federation'

13 June 1948:

Although you have not struck the note of your needs and requirements as a community but it is the policy of my Government and myself that every member of every community irrespective of caste color, creed or race shall be fully protected with regard to his life, property and honor. I reiterate to you that you like all minorities will be treated as equal citizens with your rights and obligations provided you are loyal to Pakistan.

(Speaking Quetta Parsis)

NOT A THEOCRATIC STATE

In any case Pakistan is not going to be a theocratic State -- to be ruled by priests with a divine mission. We have many non- Muslims -- Hindus, Christians, and Parsis -- but they are all Pakistanis. They will enjoy the same rights and privileges as any other citizens and will play their rightful part in the affairs of Pakistan.(Jinnah's address to the people of the US in Feb 1948)


Pakistan will not be a theocracy or any thing like that (Jinnah March 1948)


17th July 1947 Press Conference:

Question: "Will Pakistan be a secular or theocratic state?"

Mr. M.A. Jinnah: "You are asking me a question that is absurd. I do not know what a theocratic state means."

A correspondent suggested that a theocratic State meant a State where only people of a particular religion, for example, Muslims, could be full citizens and Non-Muslims would not be full citizens.

Mr. M.A. Jinnah: "Then it seems to me that what I have already said is like throwing water on duck's back (laughter). When you talk of democracy, I am afraid you have not studied Islam. We learned democracy thirteen centuries ago."


Raja of Mahmoodabad says in his memoirs: My advocacy of an Islamic state brought me into conflict with Jinnah. He thoroughly disapproved of my ideas and dissuaded me from expressing them publicly from the League platform lest the people might be led to believe that Jinnah share my view and that he was asking me to convey such ideas to public. As I was convinced that I was right and did not want to compromise Jinnah's position, I decided to cut myself away and for nearly two years kept my distance from him, apart from seeing him during the working committee meetings and other formal occasions.


"Democracy is in the blood of Muslamans who look upon complete equality of man. I give you an example. Very often when I go to a mosque, my chauffeur stands side by side with me. Muslamans believe in fraternity, equality and liberty." (Speech at Kingsway Hall, London. 14.12.1946)

Defending the IMF

I had posted my piece on the forthcoming (?) IMF programme and expressed fears as a citizen. The op-ed that was published in the NEWS has evoked a hard-hitting response by a former IMF staffer. I am happy that a debate has ensued - this is why his scathing attack on my argument is more than welcome. Any noise is better than the silence of complacency. Raza Rumi (ed.)

by Dr Meekal Aziz Ahmed

Raza Rumi wrote a nice article entitled “Debating the aid plan,” in your newspaper of Nov 1. I agree with a lot of what he says. Things in our land are pretty grim these days. But just as Mr Rumi’s article was engaging me, there came the usual blast against everyone’s favourite whipping boy and scapegoat, the IMF.

Let me recall a timeless phrase so that Mr Rumi knows “where I am coming from,” as they say, and then move on to the substance of his critique. ‘The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars, but in ourselves, that we are underlings.” Mr Rumi, who must have read his Shakespeare, surely is familiar with these words. How well that quote describes our hapless country which seems to be going nowhere, while we insist it is everyone else’s fault?

Let me now turn to the heart of his analysis and critique of the IMF. A programme with them is going to be something of a “social holocaust,” he says, bringing great misery to the people and a decline in their living standards. The IMF will ask us for all sorts of things like cuts in “development” expenditures (the quotation mark is deliberate), social spending, sweeping privatisation, a reduction in subsidies and deep cuts in the size of government. And maybe it will even insist on the unthinkable, a cut in the “Big D,” our sacred defence budget. That would be the unkindest cut of all, if Mr Rumi will forgive the pun, which is intended.

But there is more. The IMF is going to be snooping around our brilliant know-it-all bureaucrats in the ministry of finance in Islamabad, observing them closely and breathing heavily down their necks. What an unforgiveable slight that would be on our integrity and economic sovereignty.

The writer’s criticism of the IMF is terribly old hat and hackneyed. True, the IMF deserves criticism for the mistakes it has made in the past, most spectacularly in East Asia, mistakes that were easy to point out and analyse ex-post in the comfort of the drawing rooms in academia, and the cafeteria of the World Bank. After all, these persons did not have to take the lead in making the critical decisions in the face of an unprecedented meltdown of the once much-admired Asian Tigers.

Whatever the IMF’s reputation, the inescapable fact is that Pakistan needs drastic adjustment to stem, and hopefully reverse, the downslide of the economy. There is no getting around this fact, and waffling and criticising the IMF has already cost us dearly. The economy is in total disarray, it is getting worse with each passing day, and we need to pick up the pieces quickly.

To achieve this we need to start by cutting current spending, which Mr Rumi does not mention at all. We need to get rid of the waste of our precious resources, cut down the junkets, ground the VVIP executive jets, stop the multiple umrahs, desist from forming 80-member cabinets, and taking 150-member foreign delegations, demote the legions of ministers of state, auction the bulletproof BMWs or put them in storage, except for those for the president, prime minister and the Senate chairman. If others fear for their lives, they should stop flattering themselves, go home and let someone else do their job.

There will be plenty of takers, I assure them.

We need to trim, perhaps drastically, what goes by the name of “development expenditures” because these expenditures have very little to do with development. They contain a large proportion of bogus, badly-designed projects and programmes, some seriously over-cost with no hope of achieving economic viability, and others long dead in the water. While we do this, obviously we must protect vital social spending on health, education, the provision of clean water, etc., and the good, high-return projects.

It may surprise Mr Rumi that the IMF does not insist on cuts in social spending. I have worked on the IMF executive board for many years and have come across hundreds of adjustment programmes. No programme has come to the board with the gleeful announcement by IMF staff that they have slashed social spending and poverty-alleviation schemes to balance the budget. If staff did make such a claim, the programme would be rejected by the executive board. In fact, in recent years, precisely to preclude such cuts, the IMF, and the World Bank, put rising annual floors under social spending in the context of the Poverty Reduction and Growth Facility (PRGF).

The prerogative to cut spending resides with the country authorities. The IMF will ask that unsustainable spending, even on so-called “development,” should be scaled back. Where the cuts will fall is not for them to say – that is the government’s decision.

And, yet, Mr Rumi has a right to complain. Every time the IMF has asked Pakistan to cut spending because it is wasteful and unsustainable, and creates a chronic fiscal problem, Pakistan has cut spending in the “soft” social sectors, leaving largely untouched current spending so that we can carry on in our merry ways as before. Similarly, we leave untouched defence spending because there always seems to be some crisis or the other and we need all that money to defend ourselves.

That is exactly what we propose to do again if the news from Dubai is any guide. The defence minister has announced that the question of cuts in defence spending does not arise in these troubled times. Mr Rumi treads softly around the issue of cutting defence spending, the largest item in our budget, and a huge drag on our economy. He does not express any views, which is a shame.

Let me turn to the cruel and heartless cuts in subsidies the IMF will insist on. Let me start by asking who really benefits from these open-ended, costly, and badly-targeted subsidies? The poor? I don’t think so. In many countries of the world, there are social safety nets for the poor which include direct income-support but also well-targeted subsidies. Why does Pakistan not have such social protection systems for its poor? The IMF, which has the best expertise in fiscal matters in the world under one roof, will design a well-targeted and well financed social safety net in a week, if we ask them. What is preventing us from asking them for such assistance which, under their Technical Assistance Programme, comes free as a privilege of our membership of that institution?

Let me give Mr Rumi my simple answer. There is no social protection for the poor in this country because our high-flying policymakers haven’t bothered to even think of one. Because, sir, the poor don’t count.

Under these circumstances, is it a surprise that the Benazir Income Support Scheme, which is a first attempt at some sort of formal social protection in 61 years, is still being bandied about with no implementation in sight? Does anyone care whether this scheme will ever see the light of day? Or worry about the fact that, if implemented, there is a risk it will help no one in a material way and simply turn into another financial scandal? The chances of that happening are very great indeed if it is true that it has been decided to channel this income support through our worthy MNAs. I cannot think of a worse decision.

Mr Rumi is worried that an IMF programme will bring forth a decline in living standards of the people of Pakistan. His considers this outcome almost axiomatic. Let me tell him what has brought about a decline in the living standards of the people of this country. It is the 25 percent rate of inflation that rages in our land and which shows no sign of abating. That has been devastating for the poor.

During the last IMF programme, inflation was running at around two percent. Once the IMF programme was over, fiscal and monetary policy was loosened in an ill-advised dash for growth, and inflation surged as any economic textbook would tell you it would, to reach levels never seen before. An IMF programme which seeks to halt inflation should bring some welcome relief to the poor, not make their situation more miserable.

Mr Rumi does not think we need cuts in our sprawling, ever-expanding, corrupt and incompetent government. I suppose he approves of the fact that we have seven roving ambassadors and a new adviser for textiles, as my friend Khalid Hasan has recently reported. Nor, I presume, would he object to the 40 new ministers sworn in recently, bringing the total cabinet size to 57, with more ministers to come. The cold reality is that we need drastic cuts at all levels of government and a lean cabinet.

(To be concluded)

The writer has a doctorate from Oxford University and has worked at the Planning Commission and the IMF

The Taliban and Our National Interest!

Guest contribution by Hossp

The Pakistan government on many occasions has stated that it would talk to the extremists only after they lay down their arms. After a long in-camera presentation, debate, and arguments in the Parliament, it seems that the Pakistan government intends to take a firm line against the extremists in FATA. However, the PPP government has still not been able to convince a good number of politicians, intellectuals, and general public that a strong action in FATA is the best way to go.

A healthy but emotions packed debate of the Law Makers in the parliament as well as the Opinion Makers in the media is a tremendously welcome sign for the democracy. Pakistan has been trying to shed the stigma of secretive closed door decisions of a few, for the last many years. This debate would enormously help build confidence in democracy. The patience shown by the ruling party on this issue is commendable and the extensive input of the Pakistanis at home or abroad through the media has given people a strong sense of participation in the national affairs.

There is an elementary principle of reasoning: it’s known as making distinctions. The Government is facing a rough and highly charged resistance on this issue because the ruling party has not been able to frame the issue in the right context. Majority of Pakistanis absolutely would not connect with the global war on terror and the trepidations are not unreasonable. The issue really is not whether this is Pakistan’s war or it is being forced on Pakistan. The subject of the discussion should be: what our national interests’ demand? As long as the government persists with framing the issue in the context of the global war on terror, the issue would remain divisive. People all over the world are distancing from the GWOT. The current US administration’s abuse of the term GWOT has made it synonymous with the cultural war against the Muslims. The repeated mention of the clash of civilization, the crude invocation of the crusades, calling Iraqi resistance–terrorism, and the hounding and bullying of the Muslims in the Western media over the last seven years has toughened resistance to the idea of participating in a cause that is so heavily tied with the US aggression in Iraq and Afghanistan. The decline of U.S. credibility is hampering the progress on the FATA issue in Pakistan.

The government would have a hard time overcoming both emotional or realist objections, unless it is able to effectively demonstrate to the people that there are many distinctions between the situation in FATA and some other places.

Making this case is not all that hard. The Pakistanis have learned many things over the last several years. They have seen the humiliations of the nation, they have seen the falling opinions about Pakistan throughout the world and they are now more conscious of the enormous mistakes made in the past. The previous regime and the way it operated have given people a strong sense of right and wrong. The reaction to the dismissal of the Chief Justice finally proved once and for all that Pakistanis are looking for justice and are ready to stand up for the truth. While the PPP government vacillated on the Chief Justice issue, transparency on FATA is vital. Rationalizing and leveling with the people are the keys to garner support.

There is no ambiguity now about the fact that the Pakistani decision to interfere in Afghanistan were the prime reasons. However, what aced all other reasons was the doctrine of Strategic Depth. The doctrine placed against the ground realities in Pakistan, appears to have more holes than Swiss cheese. A good faith discussion on the doctrine would benefit the people. An unconfirmed availability of fissionable material in Afghanistan might also be a factor in the decision. The implausible shortsightedness at the top in 1978 to a great deal hurt Pakistani national interests. A course correction was needed after the Soviets left Afghanistan but the involvement intensified even further. However, there is more in the history then just the Pakistani mistakes. after the leftists’ takeover in 1978 deeply impacted subsequent events in the area. The ideology and the influx of the refugees in

Afghanistan never in the history had and still does not have any economic base to survive on its own. As long as the Achaemenids and the Greeks controlled large areas, the Ghaznavids, the Ghorids, and the Durranis kept on plundering and conquering the neighboring territories, the current Afghanistan survived economically and was relatively peaceful.

From the Mid 19th century on, the Afghan State was kept afloat by the British subsidies.

When the Indian independence struggle intensified, Afghanistan stepped up efforts to reclaim NWFP, FATA and parts of Balochistan lost to the Sikhs and the British in the 19th century principally for the economic survival. The relatively well off, fertile, and arable NWFP offered a hope to replace the British subsidies for the economic survival of the Afghan state. AfghanistanPakistan’s national interests, if they do not account for these realities. actively supported Faqir Ipi in FATA and political groups in both NWFP and Balochistan to position itself favorably with the Pushtoons. The persistent refusal by the successive afghan governments to accept Durand Line as the permanent borders should be looked at in the right background. Ignore these facts at your own peril. Analysts would fail to highlight

In the recent history, the drought and the famine in 1972-73 brought King Zahir Shah down. The drought in 1997-2001 forced the Taliban to ignore the poppy crop and when they tried to control it, they lost support–one of the main reasons of fast retreat in 2001.

The dwindling support of Karzai and the rise of the Taliban in Afghanistan now are directly related with the international pressure to curtail the poppy crop. The poppy crop is a major source of reliable income for the Afghanistan peasantry. Any afghan government that would attempt to curtail that would lose support instantly.

The constant changes in the strategies, the rivalries between the players in the Capital, and the domestic politics exigencies make the US policies in Afghanistan perceptibly overweening. However, a deep analysis would reveal and reinforce the American Vertigo scenarios. Still, the elephant in the room has to be accounted for. US may be weary of fighting in Afghanistan but it would continue to maintain its presence in the area by forging new alliances with different groups. Its new ally could very well be some breakaway Taliban group.

The continued insurgency in FATA, now extended to parts of NWFP creates conditions that would allow some groups to strengthen their positions for a future unification of the Pushtoon speaking areas. With NWFP and FATA joining in, the chances of economic viability of any such area would increase manifold. That is where the Taliban role in the area is of prime concern.

FATA has been in a state of semi-war for the last thirty years. Especially the last seven years of intense war like conditions in the area have contributed to the collapse the traditional cultural, tribal, and familial relations. The tribal areas lack any infrastructure for remedies. Residents have abandoned their fields; number of jobless is on the rise. Many villages have already been abandoned by its residents; some residents are in the process of moving from the vulnerable areas. The increasing numbers of jobless youth provide perfect environments for the Taliban recruitment. This is a replica of South American guerrilla movements where uneducated and unemployed youth from the countryside joined the insurgencies for obscure reasons they did not understand. The Taliban make the religious pitch; provide opportunities to youth to assert power, and promise financial rewards to help out the already strapped parents, brothers and sisters. In a collapsing social structure militants’ numbers swell up fast.

The Pakistani Taliban is not an ideological but an opportunistic anarchic group. Unlike the afghan Taliban, they do not have a country to fight for nor do they have deep ideological roots and a history of struggle to qualify as legitimate holy warriors. The farrago of Sharia is just a cover to step up recruitment to create anarchy in FATA and NWFP. The FATA is already conservative and deeply religious. The Taliban Sharia just means removal of all schools and entertainment outlets in favor of Madrassah and Jihad.

The Taliban like groups can be easily manipulated by many interested parties. The most likely manipulators could be the Afghan Taliban and some foreign groups. They encourage insurgency in Pakistan to loosen the state structure by spreading lawlessness. With the anarchy spreading to the settled areas, state would lose the apparatus to maintain the physical integrity of the country. The Taliban appears to be a classical separatist group!

With international forces on Pakistani borders, Pakistan needs to manage the area to safeguard its legitimate borders. The Taliban has become a vehicle for the disruptive forces that intend to break up the country. How is it not in our National Interest to deal with the Taliban effectively?

Death of the book?

Razia Iqbal

So the Queen of endorsements, Oprah Winfrey, has come out and said that Amazon's Kindle is "life-changing".

Could this shift the e-book reader away from the niche market and into the mainstream?
And should we care?

I love the physicality of books; there is something special about opening a new novel, or sitting in a book-lined room and perusing through an old one, which is so much more preferable to having all my books hidden in an electronic gadget.

However, I'm not sure the issue here is about being a luddite. It was only a matter of time before books caught up with other art forms such as music, movies and television. And it will be a while yet before the advent of the Kindle or Sony's Reader shuts down any libraries or bookshops. So, the death of the book isn't being announced any time soon.

But the issue of celebrity endorsement though is a fascinating one. Oprah's opinion can change a writer's fortunes, and it's not just her literary recommendations that people pay attention to. Let's not forget that when she endorsed Barack Obama for President, a study by economists at the University of Maryland showed that Winfrey's nod would give the Democratic nominee one million extra votes.

So, the fact that she is saying Amazon's Kindle is the "wave to the future" must have brought more than a smile on the faces of those running the show at Amazon.

For all that she has done for books and publishing, her very endorsement for this e-book may reignite a slow-burning fire: The next step for Amazon could be making a bid for the best literary agencies, thereby making a much shorter route from the writer to the reader.

And that really would be a revolution in books and how they are produced.

The paucity of hope: Pleaders can’t be Leaders

By M J Akbar

While the world is entranced by hope, I find myself more impressed by audacity. Barack Hussein Obama could not have found the first without an oversized dose of the second.

Since there is no leader without a listener, Obama could not have reached the White House, built partly by black slaves bought and sold a few blocks away, unless his nation had also changed. In three decades, America has moved from Reagan’s good morning to Clinton’s saucy, sun-lit afternoon, to Bush’s eerie twilight. Appropriately, it took a dream to end a nightmare. Since success is the father of sycophancy, Obama will now be compared to every icon short of divinity. He reminds me of Paul Newman in a different skin: a Cool Hand Luke, thirsting to break out of the prison that is his destiny, scornful of the warden, and confident of eventual victory long before the script is written.

Obama rose above the comfort of victim-status. He had to transcend the traps shackling his own community before he could inspire others to rise with him, on the wings of American democracy.

To the question, then, that has been hovering around the table but cannot find the respectability to join the dinner conversation: when will a ‘Hussein’ become prime minister of the world’s largest democracy? Indian democracy has the space; Mayawati has proved this. Why can’t Indian Muslims produce their own Obama?

The demographics are similar, roughly 15%. But the narratives are different. No black was invited to the White House before Theodore Roosevelt broke the taboo in 1901; India is dotted with the palaces of Muslims. Blacks were never empowered, and they did not partition the country to create their own enclave. The trust quotient, so necessary for social cohesion and political mobility, disappeared in India in 1947.

But Muslims are not the only Indian minority to have faced distrust. In 1984 there was carnage against Sikhs across the country. In 2004, a Sikh became Prime Minister. How long will Muslims have to wait?

The unvarnished truth is that neither India nor the Indian Muslim is ready. 1947 was not a solution; it became the source of a running sore that has not healed. Terrorism, and communalism, threaten to turn that sore septic. But if the Obama phenomenon proves anything, it is that alchemy needs an inspirational scientist. The state and the electorate are passive laboratories until that magic moment when a minority leader produces the touchstone that shifts the dynamic of emotion and judgment to create history.

Obama also understood a fundamental fact: change begins at home. You cannot expect the majority to reach out while pandering to insularity among the minority. The seminal turn in his campaign came when he told his fellow black Americans that the age of alibis was over; they could not blame the white man for all their ills. Black parents would have to switch off television sets and switch on education; that was the only way to integrate into America’s success story.

Equally, he did not appease the white man by turning into an Uncle Tom. His nuanced defence of Rev. Jeremiah Wright, the pastor at his church who had used volatile language, was perhaps his finest hour; he rejected the language, but could not find it in him to reject the man, or the reasons that had drawn the pastor towards rage. White America heard the anguish, and looked inside; the pivot began to swing.

Indian Muslims do not have leaders; they have pleaders. They plead with their mentors for crumbs; and they plead with their electorate once in five years for survival. Since they do not serve constituents, they need artificial inducements to get votes, either middlemen who can be purchased, or fear, which can be provoked. They cannot challenge the ills within the community because they need to hide their own venality.

They reach their perch through a nudge from the top, rather than a struggle from the bottom. They are kept in their place, which is on the midpoint horizon. Their principal, though not exclusive, vehicle for transport has been the Congress, which has no room at the top in any case. The satraps who rule regional parties are, if anything, even more calculating.

The Congress has compromised its Muslim pleadership into a comfort zone, where corruption is the reward for compromise. A seal has been placed on tongues that dare not be broken, no matter what the provocation. This is not a new phenomenon. You could have heard this silence all over the country on the day P V Narasimha Rao wilfully slept while the Babri mosque was brought down. The reward came in exactly six weeks when Congress Muslims were promoted or inducted through a Cabinet reshuffle.

I recall speaking at a largely Muslim gathering of teachers and professionals in Bangalore. When I suggested that the community should demand facilities like banks that could be sympathetic to Muslim entrepreneurs, the hall burst into involuntary laughter. I was puzzled until someone explained that a prominent neta from the city had done just that, and then embezzled all the funds in the bank. This honourable person is till on the list of high-ranking VIPs.

There is no Obama among Indian Muslims because they have surrendered audacity to pawnbrokers.