NEARLY five months after President Musharraf’s January 12 speech, and between the visits of the US deputy secretary of state, Richard Armitage, and the defence secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, India has indicated its readiness to initiate de-escalation measurers. The graph of tensions between India and Pakistan has been manipulated almost entirely by India.

Following the September 11 terrorist attacks on the US last year, the BJP hardliners perceived a diplomatic bonanza as the might of America turned on Islamic fundamentalists and terrorists. As they had managed to secure US acceptance of some sort of linkage between the Taliban and the Kashmiri freedom movement, they expected to make short shrift of the on-going freedom struggle in Kashmir.

The first three months after the terrorist outrage of 9/11 were highly frustrating for India. By joining the world coalition against terrorism immediately after the attack, Pakistan won recognition as an important ally in the war against terrorism in Afghanistan, with which its 2,500-km long border made its support especially important for the US-led operations there. India’s proffered facilities were hardly noticed, and New Delhi felt ignored and sidelined.

However, following the collapse of the Taliban and the occupation of Kabul by the Northern Alliance in November, India was able to regain the initiative, helped, in no small measure, by the “success” achieved by Ariel Sharon against the on-going resistance by the Palestinians.

New Delhi proceeded to take advantage of acts of terrorism, conveniently timed to depict Pakistan as a hotbed of terrorism, such as the attack on the Indian parliament on December 13. Presenting it as an outrage as serious as that of the September 11 attacks on the US, India cut off road, rail and air links with Pakistan and proceeded to concentrate its armed forces along the international border and the line of Control in Kashmir.

Demands were made for the handing over of 20 terrorists supposedly hiding in Pakistan, and the cessation of “cross-border terrorism.” As the US also appeared to be sympathetic to the Indian stance, President Musharraf, in a television speech on January 12 announced the banning of several extremist Islamic parties, arrests of many of their leaders and activists and committed Pakistan to opposing terrorism in all its forms and manifestations. India sought to capitalize on the international concern about terrorism in the wake of September 11 to mount pressure on Pakistan, expecting it to yield on demands clearly related to its support to the cause of the Kashmiris. New Delhi’s calculation was that the costs involved in mobilizing its armed forces to confront the Indian threat would put Pakistan’s fragile economy under unbearable pressure.

It thought the military government’s lack of popular support would compel it to yield to pressure and coercion. The statements by US leaders, asking President Musharraf to deliver on his promises of January 12, doubtless had encouraged India’s tough stance.

Apart from the standoff along the border, India’s growing repression of the Kashmiris inside the state also attracted international attention. New Delhi was obviously taking a leaf out of Sharon’s strategy in Palestine, where he was riding roughshod over the hapless Palestinians, with the US demonstrating tacit approval of this style of “terrorist-bashing.”

It is believed that the Indians stage-managed another “terrorist” incident on May 14, this time near Jammu, just as the US assistant secretary of state, Christina Rocca, started her visit to the region to help reduce tensions. India then proceeded to punish Pakistan by intensifying cross-LoC firing, resulting in fairly heavy civilian casualties. It was announced that five Indian naval ships would proceed from the Bay of Bengal to the vicinity of Pakistan’s coastline. The move was intended to raise tensions to a new pitch.

Apart from undertaking a damage control exercise through a dialogue with political parties, President Musharraf took a series of measurers to respond to the heightened level of Indian pressure and coercion. Special envoys were dispatched to various parts of the world to present Pakistan’s point of view, specially its desire to settle differences with India through dialogue.

Pakistan carried out a number of missile tests to demonstrate its capability to respond to any further arm-twisting by India. In his address to the nation on May 27, President Musharraf reiterated his commitment not to allow Pakistan territory to be used for terrorism against other countries. However, he also made it clear that Pakistan had the will and the capability to defend itself if attacked, while sticking to its stand that the answer to the problems between the two countries lay in talks.

At this stage, the international community became quite alarmed over the beating of drums of war by New Delhi and Pakistan’s resolve to resist aggression. President Bush, who was touring Europe, encouraged President Putin of Russia to offer his good offices to the leaders of India and Pakistan who were due to attend a summit on Security and Conference-building at Almaty in early June.

Though Prime Minister Vajpayee and President Musharraf both attended the meeting, Mr Vajpayee remained adamant that he would not meet the Pakistan president until he was satisfied that “cross-border terrorism” had stopped. The impression the world was getting was that of an arrogant, intransigent India and of a harassed Pakistan standing up to pressures but preferring negotiations.

The US, which too had tended to apply its pressure on Pakistan, saw the need for a more even-handed approach, especially as Pakistan’s cooperation remained crucial in its operations against Al Qaeda militants in Afghanistan. President Bush not only backed Russia’s offer of mediation, but also realized the need for Washington to step up its diplomacy in South Asia. Meanwhile, as war hysteria rose in the subcontinent nearly 60,000 foreign nationals left India after mid-May, seriously affecting the country’s tourism industry. The Bombay Stock Exchange suffered a step fall and export trade was affected. India, which had sought to cripple Pakistan economically, was hoist with its own petard.

The consequences of a conflict that could turn into a nuclear war also began to be realized by the Indian intelligentsia. The fact that the anti-Muslim riots in Gujarat that had begun in February continued tainted India’s international image, and even Mr Vajpayee had to admonish the BJP chief minister, Narendra Modi, for failing to protect Muslim lives and property. Hindu extremists were sill insistent on starting the construction of a Ram temple at Ayodhya on the ruins of the demolished Babri Masjid.

The small gestures of de-escalation made by India so far are the result, ostensibly, of the reassurances conveyed by Deputy Secretary of State Armitage to Mr Vajpayee after his meeting with President Musharraf. The decision on June 10 to lift the ban on overflights by Pakistan aircraft would benefit India more, since it would facilitate 108 Indian flights a week overflying Pakistan against the latter’s 14 through the Indian airspace. The withdrawal of five naval ships from the vicinity of Pakistan is also a symbolic gesture. Pakistan has responded by pulling back its warships from forward positions.

Welcoming these steps, Pakistan has pointed out that the real measure of India’s intentions would be if New Delhi halted its provocations along the LoC and the working boundary, and withdrew is armed forces to their peacetime locations. President Musharraf has called for a return to the negotiating table, so that the issues between the two countries, notably Kashmir, could be addressed. US Defence Secretary Rumsfeld, who visited India and Pakistan after Mr Armitage, has also emphasized that the that threat of hostilities has not receded, a view also shared by President Bush.

Other gestures are expected, including the positing of a new high Commissioner by India in Pakistan. Already, the trend towards de-escalation has lessened tensions sufficiently to cause a flurry in the stock markets of the two countries. There have been routine calls on Pakistan to reciprocate, to speed up a return to normality. However, other than reaffirmation of assurances that terrorist acts will not be permitted from its soil, Pakistan can do very little.

India made all the precipitate military and diplomatic moves to push the situation to a flashpoint. Pakistan cannot afford to carry out major withdrawals if the Indian firing and provocations are maintained at a high pitch.

The main decisions, that of abandoning the path of hostility, has to be taken by New Delhi. The leaders of the two countries were all set to resume the Agra process in September last year, as they had agreed to meet In New York on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly meeting. That did not happen. Kashmir is still burning and bleeding, and India is determined to persist in repression, as evident from the arrest of the veteran APHC leader, Syed Ali Shah Gilani, under POTA.

The benefits of de-escalation, that will remove the spectre of war and improve the economic outlook for this impoverished region, will accrue only if it is followed by the resumption of peace and normalization talks between the two countries. Mr Vajpayee still has an opportunity to earn his niche in history as a peacemaker if he resumes the journey he started at Lahore and Agra.

AMERICAN politicians and media keep asking, “why can’t other Muslims be more like the Turks?” In the North American view, Turks are ‘good Muslims:’ — democratic, pro-western, cooperative, and non-troublemaking.

Turkey is assuming command of the western ‘protective’ force in Kabul, Afghanistan, propping up the US-installed regime of Hamid Karzai. Turkish intelligence works closely with CIA and Israel’s Mossad against Islamic militants. Turkey has become a close ally and major arms customer of Israel. Islam — particularly its political and social sides — is severely restricted by Turkey’s militantly secular, anti-religious regime.

In return for Turkey’s ‘strategic partnership,’ Washington just rushed to save Turkey from financial collapse through a $12 billion IMF loan. Turkey’s shaky economy shrank nearly 10 per cent last year; inflation is rampant, with one US dollar now equal to almost 1.5 million Turkish lira. The on-going illness of Turkish prime minister Bulent Ecevit has further worsened the financial crisis.

On a closer view, Turkey’s credentials as a western-style democracy are far from perfect. When US Vice President Dick Cheney came to Turkey to drum up support for war against Iraq, he devoted far more time meeting with the chief of staff of Turkey’s powerful armed forces than with Prime Minister Ecevit. The real power in Turkey remains the army. Turkey, like Prussia, is an army disguised as a nation. Behind a fagade of squabbling, impotent politicians, real power in Turkey is held by the generals, who throw out prime ministers whenever they please.

Turkey’s generals see themselves as keepers of the sacred flame of Kemalism, the statist political system created by Kemal Atat|rk in the 1920s. Ataturk was a brilliant general who saved post-World War I Turkey from being carved up by Britain, France, Italy, and Greece. As the father of modern Turkey, he imposed a dictatorial regime that was influenced by 1930s fascism and communism.

Atat|rk sought to remake Turkey into a European nation by banning the Arabic alphabet and the fez, repressing Islam and even hanging Islamic scholars. He literally ripped out Turkey’s Islamic roots and replaced them by a form of imitation Europeanism that left the Turks with a persisting national identity crisis, unsure of what they really are: easterners, westerners, or something in between.

Turkey’s armed forces perpetuate Atat|rk’s philosophy. Enshrined in a regal mausoleum, Atat|rk has become the secular god of Turkey. Anyone daring to question Kemalism is jailed — or worse. Leaders of Turkey’s moderate Islamic parties have been routinely ousted from office on phoney charges and thrown in prison. One, the popular mayor of Istanbul, for daring to read a classic poem deemed too Islamic by the generals.

Turkey’s Kemalist political system is designed to perpetuate the interests of the nation’s US-supported ruling elite, an alliance between the military and big industrialists. Leftist critics call it the last of the 1930s totalitarian systems. Westernized urban Turks, mostly nominal Muslims, generally support the status quo and favour joining Europe. Rural Turks, larger in number but without any political power, are deeply religious, do not support westernization, and favour a return to Turkey’s Islamic roots.

The nation’s largest minority, Kurds, remain a central problem for Turkey. Though the long Kurdish struggle for an independent state has been suppressed, and Kurdish leader Ocalan captured, Kurdish nationalism still remains sand in the eye of the Turkish nation. Turkey’s brutal war against equally brutal Kurdish insurgents was marked by serious human rights violations that earned condemnation by Europe. Turkey’s oft-criticized rights record has been the ostensible reason Europe has continued to deny Turkey admission to the EU. The true reason: Christian Europe’s potent prejudice against admitting Muslim Turkey, with millions of farmers. Europe is up in arms against its Muslim emigrant population, and certainly has too many subsidized farmers.

Turkey’s strategic alliance with Israel — underlined by a recent $800 million tank deal signed with Israel during the bloody Israeli invasion of Palestinian territory — won Ankara important support in the US Congress and silenced complaints over its human rights record, but outraged the Muslim world. The Israel lobby has been making things easy for Turkey in Washington and preventing the Greek and Armenian lobbies from imposing restrictions on US-Turkish relations. Good relations with Israel assures good press in the US.

President Bush’s crusade against Iraq and militant Islam has put the Turks in a difficult position. Turkey has lost billions on trade with Iraq by supporting US sanctions against Baghdad. Now, the US is pressing Turkey to act as the policeman against Islamic groups and deepen its anti-Islamic cooperation with Israel. A majority of Turks oppose such policies; many Turks are calling on Ankara to embrace moderate Islam, stop acting as Washington’s gendarme, forget hostile Europe, and resume Turkey’s traditional close relations with the Arab Mideast.

Turks have long complained that their enormous contribution to NATO — its second largest army — has been ignored and their nation taken for granted by the West. A few Turkish intellectuals and writers risk prison by proposing to ditch Kemalism, get the army out of politics, build a genuine democracy, and allow Turks to be the fierce, self-assured, and devoutly Islamic people they used once to be.— Copyright Eric C. Margolois, 2002.

THE referendum is behind us; in front is the general election, less than half a year away. That should be the prime concern of all thinking citizens. For the leaders of political parties the gauntlet lies in front of them. It is certainly about time they picked it up and got cracking in right earnest.

It is also about time the political parties, at least those that claim to be the ‘major’ ones, took a good look at themselves. How many of them have any vestige of a basis or root among properly enrolled primary members? How many of them can claim to have top leaders (president, general secretary, treasurer) elected by any ‘in-house’ democratic process?

In order to be accepted by the public (and law) as a political party worthy of that name, a party is supposed to have a base (primary members), a constitution approved by the primary members, and elected top leadership. Another essential element is a party programme, a platform, a policy statement and document. At the time of elections a party is supposed to have a manifesto.

Let us look around and see how many of the ‘major’ political parties would seem to satisfy this set of minimum requirements.

The Pakistan People’s Party did once have a constitution. One cannot be sure if in its present shape, or character, it owns and respects that constitution in its original or amended form. It is for the PPP leadership to make the public wise on this undeniably vital issue. How can any entity claim to be a political party if it does not have a constitution, or is no longer inclined to own and abide by what it may have by way of a constitution?

One can recall that the original PPP, led by the late Zulfikar Ali Bhutto,proclaimed belief in socialist thinking, and tried (or pretended) to position itself on what would be deemed as left-of-centre. In its first term in office, the PPP did institute some changes (some may call them reforms) that smacked of a socialistic or populist bias. At least banks and educational institutions were ‘nationalized.’ Some trade union activity received patronage and support even if only verbal and theatrical.

Under the (two) Benazir governments all that was not only abandoned but much of that was reversed. Mostly the effect was one of distortion — something that was neither proper privatization nor government control. That departure would amount to a distinct diversion from the party ethos as envisaged by the original constitution of the Pakistan People’s Party. Where the PPP now stands would be better known to its leaders. Who these leaders might be now is not clear to the man in the street. Its ‘life chairperson’ is not in the country. The institution of a ‘life’ office or status is generally believed to be honorary and ornamental, not effective or operative.

The Pakistan Muslim League(N), the other so-called major ‘political’ party, is the one that headed a government in Punjab and later headed two governments at the federal level. It probably has (or had?) something in the nature of a party constitution. Whether or not that constitution is still in force in any form to any effect anywhere is not clear. What is of course manifestly clear is that the PML(N) is no longer in one piece. Which of the several broken bits of what once was PML(N) is to be recognized as genuine heir now is something of a conundrum which few would consider worth their while to sort out?

At present there are a number of new political parties on our political firmament. They are welcome. The more the merrier. At least some of them seem to have a constitution, some primary street-level membership, formally elected leaders, properly selected/nominated office-bearers and workers out in the field. But most of these parties are still in their early infancy.At this stage they can be described as largely untried. They await their coming of age.

About the two ‘major’ political parties what can be said without any doubt is that: 1) both have twice formed governments after elections, such as those elections; 2) both were dismissed on charges that amounted to criminal abuse of power and misuse of state funds and facilities; 3) the authority dismissing those governments was the president of the republic.

Also to be noted is the fact that during the period these two political party governments were in power Pakistan was designated by Transparency International as the “most corrupt in the world.” It is no longer the case, Pakistan having redeemed itself to an extent that would be seen to be quite considerable.

It is for the Election Commission of Pakistan to establish some firm framework or guidelines for the coming general election. The experience of the recently held referendum should be educative for all concerned, specially for the EC. Opinions expressed have varied almost diametrically. Some have found many faults; others found things in fairly proper shape. Some indeed have said the polling was flawed. There are also those who found polling orderly and unflawed. Be that as it may, the referendum experiences should be analyzed and everybody concerned should be the wiser for it.

One issue that would acquire increasing importance and may generate increasing heat is about the eligibility of those who stand convicted of any criminal offence. In many democracies felons and convicts automatically lose their right to vote or to seeky any elective office. Bankrupts are also debarred from voting. Law forbid insane people from exercising franchise.

It is pertinent to ask how our law would treat those who were dismissed from the office of prime minister on charges that are seen by many as amounting to grave misconduct — indeed so grave as to attract the punishment of dismissal from public service. This is a point on which legal opinion should be sought, as also the verdict of the Election Commission.

The referendum was held on the basis that the whole country was one constituency. Let there be a public debate on the point whether or not we should persevere with the idea that National Identity Card be evidence enough for a citizen to cast his/her vote at any polling station anywhere in the country. This should of course carry the condition that the NIC shall be punched once the vote is cast to ensure that there is no abuse of this facility.

There is much to be said for this facility to the voter. It makes the voting process vastly easier and hence can be an incentive for voters to take a more active part in the democratic process. The more citizens are facilitated to vote the stronger will be the democratic base of the country. That is what surely this country needs at this stage of the evolution of its democratic culture.

Induction of the youth by lowering the voting age to 18 has been seen by many as a wholesome development. But it needs to be promoted. Forward-looking political parties should encourage the younger voter by all means at their disposal. Indeed, there should be a race among the political parties aspiring to power to attract the younger voter to their ranks. It can become a solid asset for them.

It should be recalled that the PPP’s first electoral triumph which surprised the country owed much to the younger people although they did not have a vote then. Their voice did wonders for the PPP and for the democratic process. The presence of the younger voter as a deciding factor should stand greatly enhanced.

All those who wish to see the democratic process strengthen should now be thinking of the coming general election in positive and practical terms. More than a fundamental right, every citizen has a duty to think of election in all earnestness and to participate actively in the entire electoral process.

WHILE addressing “rent-a-crowd” rallies during his unconstitutional referendum, General Pervez Musharraf made serious attacks on Mr. Nawaz Sharif and the PML government. As his term of three years granted by the Supreme Court is coming to an end, it is about time that alongside the allegations he made against the PML, the performance of his own government be evaluated against the promises he made in October, 1999.

Gen Musharraf made four allegations against Mr. Sharif in his speeches. One, he accused his government of exporting Pakistani sugar to India; second, he alleged that the peace process with India was a farce; third, he alleged that Mr. Sharif had sold out on Kashmir; and fourth, he criticized the motorway project saying that it was a drain on the exchequer and waste of resources. It is unfortunate that the general made such irresponsible charges without checking facts.

As far as the issue of the export of sugar to India is concerned, there was a surplus of over one million metric tons available in the country. At the request and representations of the Pakistan Sugar Mills Association, two active members (namely Abbas Sarfraz and Altaf Saleem) of which are today federal ministers in the present government, our government allowed the export of sugar through a transparent export policy to all members of the association, including the Fauji Foundation’s sugar mills.

As against this, the present government imported a large quantity of sugar, particularly raw sugar, from India. If the export of sugar and earning of foreign exchange for the country, which actually should be a matter of pride, was a crime, then what would the import of sugar and paying hundreds of millions of dollars to India be?

The second allegation was about the peace process which the PML government had initiated with India. Believing that South Asia is losing its potential owing to conflict and mistrust between Pakistan and India, Mr. Sharif had initiated a process of dialogue with the Indian leadership, initially at the Commonwealth and Saarc summits and later at the level of foreign secretaries and foreign ministers. Finally, this process culminated in the Indian prime minister visiting Pakistan, during which he signed the Lahore Declaration. Both countries agreed to resolve all disputes, including Jammu and Kashmir, through a dialogue. The third allegation he made was that the PML government had sold out on the Kashmir issue. This is ridiculous as it was during the PML government that the issue of Kashmir got internationalized. At the non-Aligned summit, President Nelson Mandela of South Africa made a particular reference to the Kashmir issue. President Clinton had publicly made a commitment in July, 1999, to use his personal influence to help the two countries resolve the issue of Kashmir and undertake a visit to both Pakistan and India in this regard. After the Lahore Declaration, there was for the first time a real hope that a peaceful solution could be found for the Kashmir dispute. Today, there is a deadlock between the two countries because of the mishandling of the Kashmir issue by the present regime.

The cause of Kashmir is on the backburner and Pakistan is suffering humiliation at the hands of India as its demands are increasing on extradition issue. And, India, instead of solving the issue of occupied Kashmir, is making claims on Azad Kashmir.

The fourth allegation was on the construction of the motorway. It was quite interesting that while on the one hand Gen Musharraf declared the construction of the motorway a waste of resources and on the other, he boasted of constructing new motorways as one of the promises to woo people to vote for him in the referendum, thereby negating his own argument and exposing the falsehood of his allegation.

When the motorway project was first initiated, the vision was to develop a dry Suez for the future traffic of goods and supplies to and from Central Asia. But because of political considerations of the subsequent governments, the project was cancelled, revised, and later restored, causing a costly delay and almost doubling the cost of the project.

With such a cost escalation, any project will go way off the mark. If the original concept had been implemented, today there would have been a motorway running from Peshawar to Karachi with several industrial parks coming up alongside. Likewise, the motorway between Peshawar and Islamabad has now been cancelled by the present government causing heavy damage claims and adversely affecting the brotherly relations between Pakistan and Turkey. It is such policy reversals that continue to impede our economic growth.

Pakistan was faced with a difficult choice. Despite enormous international pressures, on May 28, 1998, the whole nation witnessed that the PML government didn’t succumb to any pressure, and took the decision that was in Pakistan’s best interest. As a result, the strategic balance was restored in the region. The biggest challenge confronting the PML government then was to avoid default as all foreign inflows and assistance were cut off suddenly.

When economic sanctions began lifting at the start of 1999, the country was already on the road to economic recovery. The large-scale manufacturing sector posted a growth rate of over six per cent in the last eight months of our government, and the agriculture sector which had gone into negative growth posted a 5.4 per cent growth rate.

We were able to achieve in 1998-99 a GDP growth rate of 4.2 per cent despite the crunch of severe economic sanctions. We were hoping to realize the growth target of 5.5 per cent in the year 1999-2000 and six per cent in the year following. But, the October, 1999 military intervention disrupted the recovery and growth cycle. The result was a disaster as Pakistan slipped back on the low-growth platform, with the GDP rate dropping to 2.6 per cent in the second year of the Musharraf government.

Gen Musharraf is now saying that he needs more time to show results of his policies. One would like to ask why he needs more time when his government has enjoyed absolute powers and total control of the country. On the other hand, he labels every democratic government a failure, which in fact was not allowed to continue for more than two and a half years on average, and these operated under immense pressures from all sides, being answerable to people, parliament, opposition, media, judiciary and, above all, facing military interference.

The misery of the people has increased manifold, the prices of utilities, POL, and other essential items have skyrocketed, the unemployment rate has increased, exports have failed to meet the targets, an unprecedented flight of capital from the country has taken place, domestic, foreign investments have dropped, and the law and order situation has worsened. The country has become a free land for the terrorist networks.

The promised tax reforms have failed to yield any concrete results. Where are the 150 to 200 billion rupees that were promised from the government’s reform measures. As a matter of fact, the tax revenue is shrinking despite the imposition of GST on agricultural inputs and medicines, already beyond the reach of the poor. How credible is the claim of Gen Musharraf to have built $ 5 billion foreign exchange reserves can be judged from the statement of the Governor, the State Bank of Pakistan, in which he admitted building up the said reserves through purchase of billions of dollars from the open market.

The accountability drive that was started with great fanfare has become a political victimization tool. Those who didn’t succumb to government pressures were nabbed while those who joined the king’s party enjoy immunity from any accountability. Now, as the elections approach, accountability will be used as a tool to disqualify candidates who fail to respond to the government’s tactics of forcing them to change loyalties.

To promote good governance and to discontinue the decades-old political culture of patronage and privileges, during the PML government the prime minister and the chief ministers had surrendered their discretionary powers. The PML government maintained a ban on new recruitments, despite political pressures, owing to the country’s financial constraints to rationalize the size of the government, the allocation of valuable textile quota under the discretionary powers, the issue of special permits for export of commodities and other items, and the custom duty, free import of luxury vehicles by VVIPs of the country were abolished.

In both tenures as prime minister Mr. Nawaz Sharif did not allot any plot except to the members of the winning World Cup 1992 cricket team and to 4-5 widows of government employees, who died while performing their duties.

Let us decide whether our country is to be governed by the people or by the National Security Council’s remote control, whether we will repeat the mistakes of the past or make a new beginning. The first and foremost challenge before us is to restore political and democratic stability and investor confidence without which there is no chance for any economic recovery. To restore true democracy in the country, we need to reassure the nation that political parties are capable of leading the country into the future.

We, therefore, need to agree on a “new political contract” to ensure supremacy of the constitution and parliament based on a) practising mutual respect and tolerance, b) strengthening of democratic institutions, c) promoting good governance, d) ensuring continuity of national economic policies, e) establishing rule of law through truly independent judiciary, f) respecting media’s freedom of expression, and g) introducing social, electoral and political reforms for clean politics and broad-based representation.

The writer was chairman, planning commission of Pakistan during Nawaz Sharif government.