| November 20, 2001 | Tuesday | Ramazan 4, 1422 |
Three contenders for a stone
Will Iftar diplomacy work?
Osama: will he surface & surrender?
Islamabad traffic ‘discipline’
THE Lahore High Court has asked the federal cultural ministry to submit a report to it on the efforts it has made for the recovery of the Koh-i-Noor diamond from Britain. The writ was filed by advocate M.D. Tahir. It claimed that the diamond belonged to Lahore (Pakistan) which was illegally taken away by the British when they annexed the Punjab.
THE American military pursuit of Osama bin Laden and company in Afghanistan, with crucial help provided by the government in Islamabad, has finally plunged this neighbour of Pakistan into yet another round of uncertainty and, very likely, internal chaos and strife.
THE question appeared to agitate the mind of quite a few Pathan intellectuals and academics I happened to interact during my recent visit to Peshawar. Besides ostensible irrelevance to the Afghan war after the sudden collapse of the Taliban resistance and the fall of Kabul what prompted the debate about the ‘Osama factor’ was his emphasis on his Arab descent.
GLOBAL economic environment, especially in the agriculture sector, is going to change altogether by 2004 after the enforcement of the Agreement on Agriculture under the World Trade Organization. But it appears that our planners and agricultural experts are not taking steps to mitigate its likely effects on our economy which primarily depends on the agrarian sector.
This was observed during a seminar on “Deregulations of agricultural prices” organized at the Agricultural University last Monday.
Those who watched the seminar proceedings were of the view that a lot had to be done in this connection, but the prevailing indifference to the threat posed to farmers as well as the economy was alarming. Elimination of trade barriers envisaged in the WTO could be fatal to Pakistan’s fragile economy.
There was a discussion about the plight of farmers who were suffering due to high prices of inputs; adulteration of fertilizers, pesticides and seeds; and low prices of farm produce.
Main speakers highlighted the situation likely to emerge with the implementation of WTO requirements pertaining to agriculture.
The adviser to the chief executive for agriculture, Shafi Niaz, said policies governing the agriculture sector were currently going through a metamorphosis the world over.
He said all countries were making efforts to adjust themselves to the commitments made under the Agreement on Agriculture which would be applicable to all member countries by 2004, through reduction of import and export-related tariffs and gradual dismantling of support prices and subsidies and reducing public expenditure on agriculture.
The agreements envisaged that foods security could be enhanced if the developed world stopped stimulating production through price supports and export subsidies. This would provide the market an access to the developed world and also raise the developing countries’ foreign exchange earnings. This scenario showed a brighter picture of the future through enhancing comparative and competitive advantage both for the developed and developing world.
He said the government would ensure stability of the rupee and exchange rate, good governance reforms for developing social, economic and democratic stability in the country, shifting subsidy and privileges away from large farms towards small ones, increasing expenditure for research, development, infrastructure and capacity building, diversification in not only the production activities but also the use of farm products.
Agriculture University vice-chancellor Prof Dr. Riaz Husain Qureshi said the WTO had emerged as one of the most powerful institutions along with the World Bank and the IMF on the face of the globe. There was no indication whatsoever that these organizations in the foreseeable future would be writing sunset clauses for themselves. Rather, these were giving themselves a new lease of life by addressing the concerns of civil society about poverty, deprivation and the deteriorating natural environment, which had resulted in bestowing upon them legitimacy among diverse people around the globe. Under these circumstances, what was required on our part was to pursue a policy resulting in the establishment of working relationship with these organizations, beneficial to our market environment and needs.
He said the WTO had been established on the premise that free trade could help overcome food gaps. It had frequently been argued that free trade could help countries with both excess supply and excess demand and could result in maximizing the welfare of people. The free trade, it was often believed, could also generate more opportunities and thus augment the employment level. The AoA contained the commitments of member countries to be implemented by developing countries until 2004. These commitments address the fields of market access, i.e. tariff and import restrictions; and domestic support to producers and export competition i.e. export subsidy etc.
Riaz Qureshi reminded that according to the AoA commitment, all quantitative restrictions were to be dismantled and replaced by reasonable levels of duties and tariffs. So, the WTO agreement sought to boost agricultural trade through substantial reduction in protectionism prices in member countries. Further it would allow domestic prices to move closer to international prices.
The reduction in protectionism through deregulation of prices would have multiple effects. High prices of the commodities which were at present below international prices, would make them favourable for exports while the low prices of the products which were higher than international prices would attract imports to member countries. Not only this, the consequences would have cross-economy effects in terms of exchange rate adjustment, prosperity and question of survival among different communities within countries and across the globe, he said. The other issues emerging would be income generation by small farmers, increasing trend of corporate farming and the corporate control on input and output markets, distribution of income and produce among the economic agents, the effect of export and import volatility on domestic market structure, causing price fluctuations and destablilizing farm incomes and continuation of subsidies in different forms by other countries along with inflation effects and stability questions.
The vice-chancellor said the new WTO rules governing agricultural imports and exports envisaged to create a free global economy beneficial for all countries. The guidelines on the new rules were sufficiently general to allow members considerable latitude in their implementation and many countries had manipulated details of the agreement to limit the implications of the new rules for their own agriculture sectors. For example, developed countries may use subsidy reduction selectively — more for one crop or none less for other, depending upon their export interest. On the other hand, the developing countries could hardly afford reduction in subsidies, as these along with just prices for raw materials were considered essential for their self-reliance and food security.
Agriculture Price Commission chairman Dr. Abdul Salam said the prices of agricultural commodities experienced wide fluctuations on account of their low price elasticity of demand, biological nature of production and seasonal nature of agricultural industry, i.e. outputs became available at particular times in a year.
He said as the market prices of farm products exhibited wide inter and intra-year fluctuations, the governments all over the world, to reduce the price risk, had been intervening in commodity markets in one from or the other. Notwithstanding the current trend towards liberalization, programmers providing for guaranteed producer prices and correcting the deficiencies of the market system were still in vogue in many countries, including the EU, the USA, Canada, Australia and India.
He said the government had been annually reviewing and announcing the support prices of wheat, cotton, rice, sugarcane, gram, potato, onion and non-traditional oilseed crop. The support prices were meant to act as minimum but guaranteed prices for growers during the pest harvest period. The sale of the produce at the support prices by the growers to the designated agencies was voluntary. In case the market price ruled higher, farmers were under no obligation (in theory at least) to sell the produce to government agencies at a fixed price.
He said the Pakistan government in its schedule of commitment with the WTO had included wheat, cotton, rice, sugarcane, onion, potato, gram, soybean, sunflower and safflower under the support price system, while other crops could also be included depending upon the requirement and situation. AMS in Pakistan had been indicated in negative.
He said the globalization was forcing poor agrarian-based economies to assess their natural comparative advantage and adapt their policies and structure to meet the new challenges. These challenges may offer a lot of new opportunities, but many of the producers lacked relevant experiences, skills and financial support and clout to make the desired adjustments. Moreover, the benefits may not be as broadly based.
The seminar urged the government to implement the support price policy through strong and efficient institutions. The role of government institutions as regulatory agencies should be ensured for this purpose, and the rules and regulations be rationalized and strictly implemented by trained professional manpower. By other recommendation, it stressed for full exploitation of comparative advantage which Pakistan enjoyed in the production of major agriculture commodities, world level prices for both inputs and outputs be ensured along with an efficient delivery system of farm inputs, including irrigation water.
Through another recommendation, the seminar called for deregulation of prices as required under the WTO negotiations by encouraging the private sector to participate in marketing. Wheat should remain outside the sphere of deregulation being a food security commodity.
It also demanded abolishment of the food department and retention of Passco and the Warehousing Corporation of Pakistan, which should act as a price stabilizer of essential agriculture commodities and be managed by professionally-trained manpower in areas of marketing and agriculture entomology.
Strengthening of collaborative research programme between the Agricultural Prices Commission, agricultural universities and other research organizations; enforcement of agricultural produce markets in letter and spirit and fund for market committees should be utilized in accordance with the purpose for the act. The supporting infrastructure and services in the existing market should be improved.
Another recommendation called that the globalization and WTO agreements demanded market-driven products with greater competitiveness in the international market. To ensure this the provincial marketing departments should provide proper planning, monitoring, market information and develop necessary marketing functions.
The Koh-i-Noor involves more than three parties, including Pakistan, India and Afghanistan. All three have destabilized the region right from the time when the diamond was snatched by the British and again when the latter left the subcontinent in 1947. They didn’t have good relations with Afghanistan of Amanullah Khan.
It were the Muslims of the subcontinent who staged a protest march against the attack of the British and allied forces against the Turkish caliphate. The adherents of the caliphate who went to Afghanistan were not treated well by the locals.
But the major dispute which has shaken the moral foundations of all the three angles of the triangle is Kashmir — an issue created by the last British governor-general — first by creating a boundary which was based on malice towards the new state of Pakistan and then accepting the accession request by the Maharaja of Kashmir which was sold by the British to the great grandfather of Maharaja Hari Singh.
After the sale of Kashmir in the 19th century, the Koh-i-Noor was also forcibly taken by the British and presented to the Queen.
The brief story of the diamond is that Nadir Shah took it from Muhammad Shah Rangila. After Nadir’s death, it was inherited by Ahmad Shah Abdali/Durrani from whom it was inherited by his grandson Shah Shuja. He sought refuge with the Maharaja Ranjit Singh who very cleverly snatched it from him.
In the recent past, when the British Queen visited the subcontinent, all the three countries demanded that the diamond should be returned to them. The Indians had two claims — one from Delhi on the plea that originally it was Indian property. The other claim was from the Sikh government of east Punjab and the reason advanced was that it was taken from the Sikh darbar in Lahore. Pakistanis also joined the race and their plea was that because the diamond was taken away from Lahore or Punjab, it must be returned to Lahore (Pakistan). In Kabul, the Taliban also raised claims that they were the owners of the diamond because it was the property of Afghan ruler Shah Shuja, and it must be returned to Afghanistan which could not have the diamond but it got cluster bombs instead, when the Lahore High Court sought a report from the ministry of culture.
Whether Shah Shuja had willingly given the diamond to Ranjit Singh or he was dispossessed of the stone, the fact is that the government of the Punjab was given to Ranjit Singh by the Afghan ruler, Shah Zaman.
The political fragmentation of the Punjab was such that it had no stable government and the position of other principalities was as follows:
Multan was ruled by Muzaffar Khan; the Derajat by Abdus Samad Khan; Mankera, Bannu and neighbouring areas by Muhammad Shahnawaz Khan; Tank by Sarwar Khan Khattikhel; Bahawalpur and Dera Ghazi Khan by Bahawal Khan Daudpota; Jhang by Sial Ahmad Khan; Peshawar by Fateh Khan Barakzai.
The fort of Attock was in the possession of the Wazirkhels; Kangra Hills by Sansar Chand; from Kapurth to Hoshiarpur the Sikh Sardars ruled supreme and the Sikhs also had in their possession Wazirabad, Dhanni, Khushab and Pakpattan.
None of these chiefs, including the Multan and Bahawalpur rulers, were loyal to the Mughals. Instead, all of them had their masters in Kabul. It were the important Muslim and non-Muslim elders of Lahore — Mufti Muhammad Mukarram, Muhammad Ashiq, Muhammad Baqir and Hakim Rai — who had invited Ranjit Singh to attack the city because the citizens were fed up with the deteriorating law and order situation. Ranjit Singh did so accordingly and occupied the city.
In the next three years his genius had worked well and he declared himself as the Maharaja Ranjit Singh. This happened in 1801 and in 2001 the second centenary of Ranjit Singh becoming Maharaja was celebrated by the east Punjab government on a lavish scale. Big guns like premier Vajpayee also participated in the celebrations coincided with the birth anniversary of the Maharaja who was born on Nov 2, 1780 in Gujranwala.
The celebrations as telecast by the Door-Darshan, the Indian television, projected the Maharaja more as a religious figure than as a statesman, soldier or administrator. Religion does play a part in many affairs of state but we in the subcontinent view the rulers and the invaders as the heroes of some religion or the other — it may be Prithvi Raj or Rana Sanga or Mahmud Ghazanvi or Muhammad Ghauri. And that is how the history of this area is viewed which ultimately leads the people to arrive at wrong conclusions.
Given the history of factional and ethnic rivalry in this tribal country and the unsuccessful international attempts a decade earlier to cobble a workable coalition government in Kabul, it is wishful thinking to imagine that the US or anyone else can succeed this time round, short of installing a government of the sort of Moscow’s Najibullah.
How far the resulting scenario in Afghanistan will contribute to achieving the ultimate aim of “eradicating terrorism” from the world is a big question. Already the coalition’s bombing campaign in Afghanistan and now the talk of spreading the campaign to include other Muslim countries like Iraq and Syria is giving many Muslims the world over the impression that the coalition’s war is only aimed at those who are Muslims.
The fact simply is that the non-Muslims who rain missiles and shoot at the Muslims in Palestine and Kashmir are not being considered also terrorists. And the West’s embargo of Iraq has been responsible for the deaths of 1.4 million civilians (according to the United Nations). It is, therefore, inevitable that the Muslims should think and feel that only they are being put at the receiving end of the coalition’s anti-terrorism campaign. It is precisely this perceived feeling of being discriminated against that is the very root of the kind of violent behaviour termed terrorism.
A writer from The Straits Times in Singapore in a recent article has described the relationship between America and the Muslims very succinctly with the following allegory: In a family, rank has its privileges. But a father who refuses to consider his son’s point of view, slams the door in his face and tries to starve him will only be inviting anger and outrage. Similarly, when a child is repeatedly treated unfairly, or if there are injustices within the family, some sort of irrational behaviour is an expected outcome.
So also, the same writer continues, in a family of nations, being the lone superpower has its privileges: it dictates what is proper behaviour to unruly smaller nations but it also soon discovers that these smaller nations will rebel if requirements are unreasonable and imposed solely on the basis of rank.
He writes further that dictates based simply on raw military Špower, with the stronger power refusing to communicate and listen to weaker nations and groups, will eventually lead to results that can get out of hand, as it perhaps already has in this world. When communication does not exist between those with power and those seeking justice or adjudication of a grievance, the perceived acts of injustice that are repeatedly not resolved grow into outrage, ultimately triggering the response now called terrorism.
Those who commit such acts believe their grievances cannot be heard or redressed through legitimate avenues, and their governments or regional associations also will not or cannot do. The US has been seen as supporting Israel’s 34-year-old occupation of Gaza and the West Bank. The United Nations has not only been an ineffective instrument of redress of Muslim grievances, but has also been seen as an abettor in the perpetration of what many Muslims perceive as “terrorism” on them. Even the Organization of Islamic Conference has proved an ineffective avenue.
According to the same writer in The Straits Times, healthy wholesome families have ways for perceived acts of injustice to be resolved before they grow into outrage. If an estranged child knows he can approach an angry father through his mother, that rage may be dispelled. But a disowned child with no avenue to return to the family’s fold will have his frustration growing into hatred and rage.
The writer finally quotes the example of communist China’s re-entry into the family of nations in the 1970s and suggests that the US should do the same with the Muslims now. Disgraced US President Richard Nixon will always be remembered and credited for opening up communication with communist China, he notes. This helped to reduce gradually the paranoia on both sides, allowing China to re-enter the family of nations without humiliation and disgrace.
Well, the Muslim world is still waiting for an American president a la Richard Nixon. President George Bush and Secretary of State Colin Powell are holding iftar dinners for the ambassadors of Muslim countries in Washington. American ambassadors in Muslim countries have also been asked to hold iftar functions in the countries that they are posted. This may be reminiscent of the ping-pong diplomacy that was a symbol of the thaw in Sino-American relations of the early 1970s. But in this case, iftar diplomacy is hardly going to reduce the enmity between the US and the Muslims. As The Straits Times writer concluded, for the fires of the kind of outrage that have triggered the sort of violent acts to be extinguished, there must be some hope of adjudication and redressal.
If Pakistan had played an important intermediary role in the Sino-American rapprochement, it is better poised than ever before to play the same role again now in helping to bridge the divide between the US and the Muslims. So far, however, Islamabad has not responded positively to this noble calling. Rather its policies are not only helping to drive further a wedge between the Muslims and the US, but are also helping the US to drive deeper the division in the Muslim world between “modern, moderate” and “fundamentalist, extremist” Muslims.
In Dawn’s World Exclusive (Nov 10) Osama proudly declared that ‘all my wives are Arab and all my daughters are married to Arab mujahideen.’ What then should he be doing as an Arab (non-Pathan) in a predominantly Pathan land? Conscious of his Arab lineage after years of waging his pan-Islamic Jihad, how could he ever convince others of his Islamic credentials? Wedded to his traditional Arab pride and mores, he should, in all fairness, lose his title to a true Islamic warrior above all ethnic and dynastic considerations.
His Afghan jihad remains unquestionably the most crucial single dynamic behind the savage US bombings of Afghanistan under Operation Enduring Freedom. Had he had the guts to surface and surrender before Oct 7 to meet the American ultimatum he would have saved an untold number of precious lives of innocent Taliban (Pathans) and spared Afghanistan the wreck and ruin it suffered under the deadly rain of explosives.
That was even after his host Mulla Mohammad Umar, Amirul Mominin of the moribund Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan (IEA), allowed him to leave the country of his own free will. Why then a holy warrior, as fiercely determined and dedicated as Osama, should have chosen to betray such pathetic concern for his own safety at the cost of his hosts — of his land and people?
Whether his choice to stay back was out of his fear of death or from considerations of higher strategy would be hardly an honourable one in either case.
As part of a grand design, the strategy could not have been more flawed, virtually like showing red rag to the bull. It brought the American warplanes like swarms of angry vultures to overcast the Afghan skies and play havoc with the people and properties. It was for Osama himself to decide to move out of his hideout, even without a nod from his host to save the situation.
More than a dedicated Islamic warrior, Osama behaved as a commander under siege, concerned more with his own security than that of his men. Hardly ever popular with the non-Taliban Pakhtoons, Osama’s personal stock was easily at its lowest among my interlocutors.
None seemed to doubt that, sooner rather than later, Osama would be hunted down and captured, dead or alive. Alive, in fact, he could be more of a problem for his captors than dead. Due process of law would take place to give him his best chance to defend himself in the full glare of international media. No less a person than President Bush said he would rather have him dead than alive.
Even a judicial trial of sorts would give Osama not only the opportunity to defend himself but also speak for the ideological dynamic of his Al Qaeda network and let the world know the difference between his jihad and its tendentious misinterpretation as outright terrorism. Must he try to evade the traumatic aftermath of his actions worldwide?
The emerging view was that rather than prolong his occulation, it was time for Osama to plan a quick exit strategy and execute it without further loss of time. The net around him is getting narrower and narrower with few loopholes left to help him get through. So why not be brave and appear in full view of his world than prolong the ordeal of self-imprisonment.
Osama’s observations against Gen Musharraf, as reported in Dawn’s World Exclusive, also came in for some heated debate. Who is he, at any rate, to claim that the ‘majority’ was against him (Musharraf). ‘I say the majority is against him,’ he stressed. Would it not amount to inciting people (Pakistanis and Afghans) to violence against the Pakistan head of the state?
He challenged Gen Musharraf for what he thought amounted to making a deal with the US. ‘It is no wisdom to barter off blood of the Afghan brethren to improve Pakistan’s economy.
‘He will be punished by the Pakistani people and Allah.’ Inflammable eloquence at its hottest.
Soon after my Peshawar visit, it was reported that the British commandos had been within 34 square kilometres northeast of Kandahar where Osama is supposed to be in the hiding. It should be a matter of little surprise, therefore, if he is finally hunted down — dead or alive — any day (or moment) soon.
WE quote the Quaid-i-Azam at the drop of a hat: “Unity, Faith, and Discipline.” As you roll along the Islamabad Highway towards the federal capital, on your left you see the famous motto picked out in large white letters on the green slope of a hillock on your left.
The authorities could not have selected a more suitable site for everyone to be reminded of the basic characteristics of any Islamic state.
It appears, however, that the motto remains a motto and a decoration piece to elicit patriotic “Wah! Subhanallah!” from all heading towards the city.
Traffic on the Highway is fairly reasonably well-controlled by the men in blue, but, once you get into the Capital, the “DISCIPLINE” part of the motto disappears like magic. It is everyone for himself, traffic rules be damned.
A retired lawyer friend told me that most accidents on the road were never reported although the rules required the formality. Muk-muka is resorted to, whether it is a matter between the cops and the defaulter or between two parties concerned. A great time-saver, this Muk-muka. Infact, there is a rumour afloat that the latest Afghan war can still be ended by adopting this formula.
The lawyer says that out of the very few cases he handled during his legal practice, most involved two parties, both of whom swore to be on the correct side of the road and stationary when the collision took place.
Physics teachers should inquire into such miracles of the 21st century science and add their discoveries to Newton’s famous laws of motion.
The lawyer related an incident that took place in one of the narrow lanes of Islamabad. A motorcyclist entered a one-way street, parked the vehicle on the extreme left of the thoroughfare and went into a friend’s house. Along came a pickup into the same lane and rammed his transport into the rear of the motorcycle, damaging both vehicles.
As expected, a policeman materialized out of the blue.
Policeman: Registration ki kitab!
Defaulter: Yeh lo! Do you know Head Constable Rehmat, my uncle?
Policeman: By face only. Your driving licence!
Defaulter: Yeh lo! I think you must be knowing Sergeant Iqbal? He is also my maternal uncle.
Policeman: Achha, achha, he’s your mamoon!
Defaulter: I am just coming from his house.
Policeman: Here are your papers! Let’s find out who is the —zada who reversed into you! I’ll teach him! The brainy Japanese must have come up with a motorcycle that can be reversed! Pakistani engineers, please note.
The other day an ear-shattering roar nearly made me lose my balance while walking past a school. It turned out to be a teenager — most probably from the school in the background of the first photograph — who was taking advantage of the short break and practising his stunt-riding. I think he intends joining a travelling circus or may one day be the chap in the daredevil performance of the Well of Death.
There was every likelihood of his planned career cut unexpectedly short by involving himself in a head-on collision with another vehicle.
If he himself survived the crash but killed or maimed for life some pedestrian and woke up in hospital with only his eyes showing through his bandages, the chances are that he is a spoiled brat, descended from a similarly spoiled ancestor. For example who else?
Well, what do you think of the person who has parked his car (second photograph) at a No Parking traffic sign? I wish he had at least spelt his English correctly.—N.A.Bhatti