Terrorists and their cousins

MOST peace-loving people had hoped that an armed attack on Afghanistan would be avoided, because one innocent Afghan killed is one too many. But things did not work out quite that way and hundreds of civilians have perished. Now, one can only hope for an early cessation of the bombardment, though there is little comfort on that front either as we hear much talk of the next phase of military action.

There was always an apprehension that with the holy month of Ramazan approaching, President Bush would be under pressure to act soon. Any operations during Ramazan would totally alienate an already wavering Islamic world. The US president appeared to be showing patience and restraint and there were encouraging signs that in America itself public opinion was veering away from the concept of revenge. Events, however, would now suggest that the decision to use force had been taken immediately after the horrific atrocities of September 11 and the delay was necessary to allow the military buildup to be completed.

Once the fearsome armada had been assembled, it was inevitable that it would go into action. In place, guns are always impatient to be put to their intended use. Perhaps President Bush retained a faint hope that the Taliban would relent in the face of the clear ultimatum issued to them. Mulla Omar was foolish enough not to heed the warning and, therefore, must bear the prime responsibility for the agony his country is going through.

This does not mean that others can be absolved of responsibility. Every party which has been in any way involved in the Afghan saga over the last twenty years or more has contributed to the misery of that unfortunate land. Things would not have come to this pass if the Soviets had not launched their misadventure in 1979. Nor if the CIA had not nurtured demons like Osma bin Laden. The sinister activities of Pakistan’s ISI have contributed in large measure to the present tragedy.

Army generals, in their military capacity or as civilian cabinet ministers, have constantly tried to play a major role in a drama whose vast dimensions they could never really comprehend. They brought to their performance that most dangerous of all attributes — a little knowledge. Where imperial powers and superpowers had failed, a handful of brass-hats saw themselves as latter-day Lawrence of Arabia and attempted to call the shots in the Great Game. They were hopelessly out of their depth but to this day they will not admit it.

Even in the present crisis, where the ISI continues to be a central player its activities arouse suspicion. Why, for example, was it necessary for the ex-DG, ISI, to meet Mulla Omar alone in Kandahar to deliver the anti-terrorism coalition’s ultimatum? Only the two of them know the exact words in which it was delivered. The second delegation comprising Muslim clerics was also accompanied by the ex-DG, ISI, and it is now common knowledge that the main point they made was that they would stand by the Taliban come what may. The appointment now of a well-reputed and seasoned general as the new ISI chief will be seen as a ray of hope that from now on things will be different.

Anyway, the attacks on Afghanistan have taken place and hundreds of poor innocent citizens, including women and children, have died. There is no reason to doubt that every care was taken to avoid this, but war is never particularly choosy about its victims. The simultaneous humanitarian effort is laudable if somewhat ineffective. It may feed some of the living but it cannot bring back the dead. The US-led coalition must now look for ways of bringing the suffering of the Afghan people to an early end. What was once called the Free World owes a heavy debt to these poor but valiant people. The time has come to pay that debt. Bombing them is not the way to do it. It is the sacred duty of the international community to bring peace to Afghanistan and to immediately set about reconstructing that country.

Unfortunately, the Muslim world has failed to rise to the occasion as a united body. But then unity has never been one of its strong points. On September 11, Islamic countries were faced with a situation which vitally affected Muslims all over the globe. Though their individual responses were speedy enough to reflect their own interests, as a collective body the OIC showed an inexplicable dilatoriness. Its foreign ministers assembled at their leisure a month later at Doha (Qatar) and made a faint-hearted call to avoid civilian casualties. Their main interest remained focused on issues of concern primarily to the Arabs and the communique issued at the end of the meeting contained little that could comfort the Afghans.

The OIC did not mention, leave alone call for, intensive efforts to bring about a consensus among the various factions in Afghanistan and the early establishment of a broad-based, representative government. Had they done so, it would have greatly strengthened the hand of the UN which has constantly worked towards that end. Even now it is not too late for the Muslim world to openly put its full weight behind this idea, provided some of the Muslim countries can get over their aversion to any mention of terms like broad-based and representative.

The military action against terror, we are told, is only the first step. The overall battle will be long and sustained and it will bring into play not only armed might but also the full array of political and economic weaponry. All this is being said, of course, without any clear definition of terrorism. To most people terrorism means the killing or harming of innocent people in pursuit of some political or other ends of an individual, a group or a state.

But this definition is full of loopholes. What if the end being pursued is a lofty one like restoration of a people’s birthright or their freedom to determine their own future? what if they have exhausted all peaceful and legitimate means and the adversary, because of its superior strength and the support of powerful friends, remains adamant? What is to be done about the feeling of helplessness, of frustration and of despair that such situations generate? Will the coalition against terrorism address the root causes of terrorism or will it remain loyal to its friends? Surely it is a moot point who the terrorists are in such a case. The fact that organized forces like an army and air force are used to kill innocent civilians does not take these actions outside the definition of terrorism. Those who take such actions are at least the cousins of terrorists.

Furthermore, terrorism cannot be spoken of solely in terms of physical violence. There are despots who trample upon the rights of their citizens without having to kill them. There are those who deny their citizens a rightful share in the nation’s wealth and those who stifle their voice. Will the international coalition turn its attention to their misdeeds also or will it continue to prop them up and call them legitimate governments? Surely, these too are distant cousins of terrorists in that they bring suffering to the poor, the innocent and the helpless.

Then there are the hordes of corrupt leaders who are guilty of the most heinous crimes against their people. Many innocent men, women and children suffer hunger and disease, illiteracy and the winter’s cold because resources which should have been utilized to improve their lot have found their way into the pockets of greedy and unprincipled rulers.

Do the Marcoses and the Mobutus of this world not represent a different face of terror against the helpless? Closer to home, every Pakistani child is born with a debt of thousands of dollars already written up against him, but a major portion of the money borrowed in his name has ended up in the pockets of the Bhuttos, the Zardaris, the Sharifs and a host of corrupt bureaucrats, politicians, generals, air-marshals and admirals.

Into what category do these thieves and robbers fall? They have not necessarily used violence but they have been directly responsible for the miseries of poor innocent people. If they are not terrorists, surely they are cousins of that despicable lot and it remains to be seen whether the international community will recognize this or continue to grant them safe havens, valuable publicity and luxurious lifestyles in the West.

Obviously, the war against terrorism in all its various aspects and manifestations is not as clearly focused as it should be. The enemy is not just the gun-toting or knife-wielding criminal. The enemy includes all those who in pursuance of their own agendas cause untold suffering to the poor, the helpless and the disadvantaged. The war, therefore, has to be waged against all such elements. Some can only be stopped by force, others have to be targeted with economic and political weapons. The international community must not stop half-way. If we are to rid the world of all forms of terrorism, even its distant cousins of that bane must not be exempted.

Staying one step ahead

THERE is no denying the sensitivity of the times, particularly so for General Pervez Musharraf. A number of difficult decisions were forced on him in the last few days. Any of these could easily go wrong and in the process not only destabilize his government but also have drastic consequences for the country and the region.

From throwing his full weight behind the American-led anti-Osama operation to rearranging the top army brass, the president is clearly trying to stay a step ahead of events by taking considered pre-emptive measures. But is he doing enough?

There is little doubt that had he not responded to the American demand for cooperation in the manner that he did, the consequences for Pakistan could have been far worse than the spectre of angry mullahs hitting the streets and burning his effigy. In all probability, Pakistan would have been branded a rogue state because of its admitted affiliation with the Taliban and for starters, what better ruse than a pre-emtive move to “neutralize” our nuclear facilities? Unquestionably, Afghanistan would have remained the prime target of the US-led military action as and when mounted but Pakistan could well have been the first war casualty in the region. Though the possibility of all this still happening remains alarmingly real, the president for now has indeed bought time and greater international credibility for the country.

However, caught up in the web of an international crisis with many dimensions, President Musharraf faces the risk of ignoring certain imperatives of domestic politics. His government has entered the typical critical phase as in the case of both Field Marshal Ayub Khan and Gen. Zia-ul-Haq. Both became immensely strong after removing their fellow coup makers from the power scene. Instead of being beholden to some fellow officers for bringing them into power, both leaders lightened their ‘debt burden’ by replacing the old guard. Both then carved a political role for themselves in a political structure of their own design. Then both made the identical mistake of attempting to run politics to the total exclusion of established political entities. Overconfident about their power to create their own political reality, both generals raised their own political broods to go with it. Both, however, met with failure in the end.

President Musharraf stares at the same goal line now. No longer beholden to a set of officers instrumental in his rise to power, he is solely in charge of his military establishment. A new political order too seems to be in the making, with him already in place as its legal and conceptual guardian. He can now either emulate the failures of his predecessors in a futile bid to create his own “loyal” political flock or earn the loyalty of established political forces by engaging them in a positive manner.

The president can ill-afford to ignore the silence and aloofness of the mainstream political parties in the midst of the din and noose of the extremist religious elements. It is these parties that he needs now to court, to help him out in the immediate future.

The deliberate silence of the populist political parties is understandable. They are shy of alienating Washington, whose tacit approval is considered a pre-requisite for any aspiring prime ministerial candidate. At the same time, these parties do not want to fall afoul of the popular sentiment either, which historically tends to go against the Americans.

Then, these parties are also aware of the lack of a rallying point against the government in such uncertain times. Hence their wilful silence, saving them the dilemma of taking positions on emotive and controversial.

The mood of the general public will be more defined in the coming weeks. It is bound to be influenced by the number and circumstances of civilian casualties in Afghanistan and also by the nature and scale of public agitations on our side of the border. The level of economic assistance to Pakistan by the West too will go a long way towards placating or agitating the general public, who will be evaluating whether our decision to fall in line with the US has been adequately rewarded or not.

Exhibition of anti-US sentiment in other parts of the Muslim world too will have an impact on public opinion here. The cumulative effect of all these elements will determine the political climate in the coming days. Politics, it is said, is the art of timing and as anyone can see, the present is not the right time for any political party to act out its desires. But any aversion to action by political elements at this moment must not be confused with an absence of a desire or will to do so in the coming days.

While the final complexion remains uncertain, what seems certain is that the religious right-wing parties will be coming out in strength on the streets and it would be suicidal for the government to try to stop them by state force alone.

The government can only neutralize a religio-political movement by mobilizing a counter political force and for this it needs to enlist the support of the secular mainstream parties with their progressive nationalistic outlook and commitment. President Musharraf would do well to overcome his apparent antipathy towards the influential political outfits in general and the PML and the PPP in particular.

His government needs to make a deliberate effort to harness their strengths instead of wanting to keep them at bay.

Till now, the president has displayed an uncanny ability to stay a step ahead of unfolding events and to survive economic and political challanges. He will now have to find allies to reinforce his flanks. Just as the army high command has been revamped, the top political tier too warrants a similar treatment. If it is to thwart the designs of the growing coalition of extremist religious elements that the government needs to adopt national unity as its principal motivating force.

To do so, the president would have to secure the help of the established political forces. He needs to invite the main political parties of the country to join hands with him at this critical hour.

Avoiding the past tendency of rulers to pick up important members of political parties in their individual capacity, important parties should be asked to nominate their representatives to join a government of national unity.

To counter religious extremists, the president needs to enlist the help of mainstream political forces. He must expand his cabinet to ensure representation for these forces. Such a move would serve many purposes.

With political parties supporting him at this hour in return for a promise to restore full democracy by next year, he could easily isolate the religious extremist fringe and rob them of the opportunity to wrongfully project themselves as the legitimate articulators of popular political dissent. With a stake in the new system, the political forces would ensure its survival.

Instead of exploiting the weaknesses of a government grappling with multifarious problems against the backdrop of dismal economic conditions, their support could make all the difference for the country and its people.

Such a development would also help foster an understanding between the ruling regime and the political forces, crucial for the continuity of any future political dispensation in the country. Whichever way one looks at it, it is a winning formula for the president. Whether he looks at it in the some spirit remains to be seen, however.

War’s fallout on our economy

US secretary of state Colin Powell’s meeting with President Pervez Musharraf has resulted in “solid understanding” between them on “strengthening the cooperation” between the two countries and expanding bilateral relations.

For Pakistan the important question is: how long will the war, particularly the aerial strikes, last, and what new forms will it take? On that depends the inflow of Afghan refugees into Pakistan, who are already over two million.

Pakistan will receive far more refugees if the air strikes continue or ground fighting erupts and that adequate food relief does not reach there in time. Hence heads of various UN agencies led by Mary Robinson, the UNHCR chief, are calling for suspension of the air strikes so that humanitarian relief could reach the two million Afghans, who would starve or freeze to death if food supplies do not reach them before the start of winter in mid-November. The UN says as many as 7.5 million Afghans could need assistance during the harsh Afghan winter, while it expects 1.5 million more refugees into the neighbouring countries of Afghanistan.

The situation is so bad in Afghanistan, says President Bush, that 25 per cent of the Afghan children die before the age of five, one-third of them are orphans and almost half suffer from malnutrition. He has hence appealed to every American child to donate one dollar each to help a child in Afghanistan.

And after announcing an extra 22 million dollars of additional aid for Afghanistan, Clare Short, the British international development secretary, says: “We are racing against time to truck massive quantities of food and other emergency supplies into the country before the show makes large scale trucking hazardous.” She says that 500 tonnes of food is being driven in every day by Afghan commercial truck drivers but in five or six weeks it will become “massively more difficult” to move in supplies. “So we need to double it. It is a big effort, but it is doable.”

A US army spokesman had earlier said that all the strategic targets in Afghanistan had been hit, and those which were missed in the first round were hit again in the second around. And that should obviate the need for repeated massive air strikes.

There had been demonstrations in Pakistan against the air attacks and also hartals on the call of the religious parties causing closure of shops, factories, schools and colleges. Last Friday when there was a strike industrial production in the four major industrial estates of Karachi was reported to have fallen by 50 per cent. The situation was not as bad on Monday when a second strike was called to protest against the visit of Colin Powell, as precautionary measures had been taken by some factories; but the ships sailed off without their export cargoes.

The question is: can we afford to shut down our factories, schools, colleges and shops so frequently and resort to violence if they are not shut? In the demonstrations held to denounce the air attacks the religious parties were in the forefront and they are ready to call for shutdown any day. And they do not care about the loss to the economy and the country or to future generations if their schools and colleges get shut down too often.

We talk of the IT revolution in Pakistan and dream of three billion dollars IT exports instead of the 30 million exports now. And scores of IT institutes charging heavy fees are opening up every month only to remain shut too often. IT revolutions and frequent shutdown of the institutions and closure of the economy do not go together. But those who call for the strikes do not care.

Interior minister Moinudin Haider says the people are free to demonstrate against what they do not approve of, but that should not be violent, and should be within the ambit of the law.

But in Pakistan rallies, demonstrations and processions tend to become violent too soon. If the sponsors of such events are not indulging in such violence or promoting them other elements who join such events do that. The end result is violence as witnessed at Lyari on Monday and at SITE in Karachi last Friday. And destruction of public and private property followed.

In Quetta last week a large number of cinemas were raided and a number of banks looted. If more bank branches could not fall a prey to the attackers it is because they could not succeed in their attempts to rob them.

Gen. Haider says the people who take to violence and indulge in destruction would be made to pay for damage they cause. That is easier said than done. Nobody would own up causing such damages. And the government’s effort to recover the value of the property destroyed from any religious or other party may result in endless litigation. Hence prevention is the better part of this campaign.

But knowing that it is easy to organise a rally or procession but difficult to control it or prevent mischievous elements from joining it, the political or religious parties should opt for less hazardous demonstrations. And that should take the form of not forced closure of factories, shops, schools and colleges but a public meeting or rally at one place from where it does not move. The government has to give permission to political parties and others for such fixed place rallies instead of letting them free to force closure of factories and schools.

Those who try to shut down factories and shops too often should realize they are hurting not only the owners of these establishments but also many of their poor workers who work on daily wages. And when the economy becomes weak and the country poorer as a result of such frequent closure of factories schools and colleges we will have to depend far more on the countries against whom they are demonstrating. And that is happening in Afghanistan today. As the US carries out bombing, it is also rushing food supplies to them worth a total of 180 million dollars this year.

In a country with too many political parties and far too many religious parties, the government should devise civilised forms of protest instead of allowing forced closure of key institutions too often. Better now than never.

What will be the shape of Pakistan’s economy in the wake of the US-led war against terrorism and Pakistan becoming a front line state? What we get is a basket of positive and negative developments some f which are not mature yet. Some of those who were expecting large aid quick from the US may be disappointed by the quantum of aid committed so far.

But in this area the visit of finance minister Shaukat Aziz to Washington is far more important than the visit of Colin Powell to Pakistan. The US aid to Pakistan is of three kinds: Aid which the President can sanction by himself; that which needs congressional approval; and the one which is given on a conditional basis like restoration of democracy by October, 2002, of which Colin Powell also made a mention at his press conference in Islamabad. Then there are other means of assisting Pakistan like permitting the IMF and World Bank to give large aid and the US not vetoing it.

Each of these steps except the first one can take sometime on the “solid foundation for economic cooperation” that Colin Powell spoke of at his press conference. Meanwhile the US Overseas Private Investment Corporation has decided on a series of extraordinary measures to help Pakistan, including a 300 million dollar specific line of credit. Other OPIC measures include financing political risk cover insurance for US sponsored projects, and the availability of OPIC loans to the US non-governmental organizations currently assisting humanitarian efforts in Pakistan.

The Export-Import Bank is also ready to help Pakistan buy four Boeing 777 aircraft for PIA at reduced rates as the planes have become surplus to the US aviation industry following the shrinking of the industry in the aftermath of the September 11 terrorist attacks on the US.

President Musharraf also discussed the debt problem with Colin Powell. Whether the assistance from the US and the West as a whole comes in the form of only debt re-scheduling or also as partial write-off of the debt remains to be seen. Pakistan is more interested in debt write-off than rescheduling of the old loans.

The World Bank estimates the loss to Pakistan will be to the extent of one billion dollars on account of the war. But if the war lasts long the loss can be heavier. Pakistan’s fear is there can be a loss of 1.5 billion dollars on account of decline in exports alone. That can be partially made up by the fall in the import bill on account of the fall in oil prices to 20 dollars a barrel. But if the war risk insurance premium is too heavy the imports will cost far more for us and our exports will cost far more for our overseas importers. And that can foul up our external trade in a big way.

A rainbow with its colours smudged

THE leaves are beginning to change. Amidst the green, you now see streaks of yellow, russet and red. This is the second and last autumn of your Washington posting, and ordinarily there might have been a twinge of regret at how quickly summer has led to fall and how this short-lived season of colours will soon run into winter.

But in the past five weeks you have seen a carefree nation suddenly turn inward and the sense of freedom that made working and living here both exciting and challenging give way to self-conscious doubts and political confusion. The run of anthrax cases has dashed any early hopes of an open society rebounding to a rational mode of behaviour and regaining its equilibrium.

The attacks on New York and Washington had created one kind of dilemma. You had watched, shell-shocked, television shots of the hijacked airliners slicing through the Twin Towers and setting the Pentagon on fire and wondered how anyone could do anything like this. But then came the thirst for vengeance and the war hysteria and the exhortation, “You are with us or you are against us”, followed by news of bunker-busters that make the earth shake. There are reports of civilian casualties as the bombing campaign goes on and on. There are pictures of Afghan children waiting with their parents to find a safe refuge.

From Pakistan comes news of protests against the decision to link the country with the United States in the anti-terrorism campaign. You argue that everyone had always been scared of the “street power” of the religious parties and shied away from challenging it. Now circumstances have helped to call these parties’ bluff, and their power has turned out to be containable and no more than what has been reflected in poll after poll.

One of Pakistan’s own political and social contradictions may be resolved. But what next? If the pressure continues and the Americans manage the crisis with their usual lack of understanding and foresight, many more people may be alienated. Traditional democrats and liberals and pacifists may find it difficult to remain neutral or supportive of the military regime. There may be internal strife.

Where do you stand in all this? you wonder. Why, you suddenly and perhaps not quite logically think, had the democratic world kept silent when the Islamic Salvation Front won parliamentary elections in Algeria in 1992 but was denied power, leading to the creation of another pocket of fundamentalist rage? The Algerian Islamists had then unleashed a war on their own people, with an estimated 40,000 people killed in the post-1992 civil war. Did the stirring Algerian struggle against French imperialism have to come to this throat-slitting? That is the danger of bottling people up, of obstructing the political, democratic process.

So, you again ask yourself, where do you stand in all this? The answer is not easy. You are reading a detective novel, and a line strikes a chord: “I’m an anomaly, of no particular creed or purpose.” Is that it then? Condemned forever to be neither here nor there?

Many Pakistanis who have made America their home are undergoing a different kind of anguish. A friend tells you how, when he went to board a flight from Atlanta to Washington, he and wife and all those who had Arab or South Asian names were checked in separately, how their boarding cards had a line across them that ensured that they were given a rigorous body search before they were allowed to proceed to the aircraft. To ensure that there was no impression of racial profiling, some white Americans were intermingled with the queues meant for persons who were to be more carefully screened than others.

The friend recalled, with a laugh, that while they were still waiting in the lounge at Atlanta airport, he had got a call on his cell phone from his teenage son at home. The son had said, ‘Father, if you see someone suspicious-looking, don’t travel’. The friend said he had told his son, ‘I think we are the only suspicious-looking characters here’.

After what happened on September 11, you can understand the xenophobia; you can also appreciate the security precautions, which in fact are also for your own protection. But understanding a phenomenon does not mean liking it. There have been innumerable instances of goodwill and reassurance. A friend who runs a limousine service and counts a former vice-president among his clients says that immediately after the September 11 attacks, he had received many calls from people he did business with who were solicitous of his welfare and made offers of help. The experiences may vary, but life has changed for those from South Asia or the Middle East who have decided to live here as much as it has, for different reason, for the majority of Americans.

There has been a loss of self-confidence on the part of expatriates from our areas; for Americans, there has been an erosion of their confidence in their invulnerability. They had never faced anything like this before.

They are confronting a development that they cannot truly comprehend: someone willing, out of whatever, a sense of hopelessness perhaps or despair or crazed anger, willing to kill himself and others with him. The fear of biological and chemical terrorism has added another frightening dimension to the situation, although the link with Osama bin Laden or Al Qaeda has yet to be established.

Everyone hopes that life will return to normal one day soon. Maybe, but for many Pakistanis, who assumed that they belonged to America and America belonged to them, it appears like the rainbow’s end. They thought they had been totally owned by the host society, but they now realize that they are no more than ‘mohajirs’, facing cultural discrimination and racial profiling. They may not sense it for days and weeks, but it comes home when they travel or lose business.

The rainbow has not disappeared, but its colours look a bit smudged. Far better, while you are here, to live from day to day and look out of the window and see nature’s own secular painting of the landscape, indifferent to whether you like the orange better than the russet.

IRONICALLY, it has fallen to the lot of a person who was a member of Algeria’s high security council that cancelled the country’s 1992 elections to now bring peace and stability to a post-Taliban Afghanistan. The United Nations secretary-general has recalled Lakhdar Brahimi as his special representative to Afghanistan after having ended Mr Brahimi’s appointment in 1999, two years after he took on the job of trying to din some sense into the heads of the country’s warring factions.

But irrespective of what happened in 1992 — and perhaps his conscience would not allow him to see Algeria slipping into the hands of fundamentalists — Mr Brahimi has a distinguished record as a diplomat and peacemaker. He was a representative in South-East Asia of the National Liberation Front during Algeria’s long struggle against French imperialism and later served as diplomatic adviser to the Algerian president and as Algeria’s envoy to Britain, Egypt and the Arab League. He also mediated an end to Lebanon’s civil war that began in 1975 and radicalized the country’s own Shia and Palestinian refugees. Mr Brahimi has also undertaken various UN assignments in Zaire, Yemen, Haiti, South Africa and Angola.

As a high-profile Arab Muslim, Mr Brahimi’s chances as a mediator and nation-builder in Afghanistan are rated high here. His earlier intervention in Afghan affairs was not much liked by Pakistan, probably because he was not willing to accept the ISI’s prescription for a solution, but he may find today’s Pakistan more flexible and accommodating. He is due to arrive in New York for consultations at the UN this week.

MS Benazir Bhutto was in Washington on what has become almost an annual pilgrimage to Washington during her exile. She said there were no formal meetings with any US officials, and she had come only because the Pakistani community here felt that her presence would help reassure the community and present a moderate face of Pakistan for American audiences.

She was careful, while talking to Pakistani journalists, not to criticize the military regime, and the local grapevine has it that she may actually be appointed as Pakistan’s ambassador at large.

Ms Bhutto, who has now become far more tolerant of criticism and plain-speaking than she ever was in her days as prime minister, didn’t flare up when it was pointed out that her husband, Mr Asif Zardari, had probably spent more years in gaol in recent years than any other political prisoner, yet not even a dozen people had ever turned up outside the prison with placards demanding his release.

Did it not show that even her own party workers were not overly bothered about her or her husband? The question hurt, but Ms Bhutto’s riposte was also to the point and sharp. If, she said, she had lost popularity, then why was the establishment so keen on preventing her from contesting elections? The people should be able to judge when they voted.

The People’s Party leader also gave lectures at different places. How much does she get per lecture — $10,000, 15, 000, 25, 000?