Political game in Kashmir

PRIME MINISTER Atal Behari Vajpayee’s intention of resuming negotiations with Pakistan for settling Kashmir dispute and other bilateral issues has been prompted mainly by four factors — external pressures, internal ‘compulsions, electoral needs and Pakistan’s steadfast firmness on issues of principle.

India has assessed that its unilateral disruption of links with Pakistan has run its course and its rigid policies are now globally and regionally hard to defend. New Delhi has therefore made a tactical shift in its earlier approach.

The global condemnation of the acts of terror of 9/11 created a pro-US sympathy wave in the world. India took advantage of this opportunity, maligned the indigenous freedom struggle in Kashmir and accused Pakistan of aiding the so-called cross-border terrorism in Kashmir. New Delhi tried to divert world attention from its military occupation of the disputed State and the human rights violations committed by its armed forces in the Valley.

The prolonged military red alert in India and Pakistan and disruption of normal ties between them is a rebuke to the political sagacity of the rulers. Political disputes like Kashmir does not disappear with the passage of time, nor can they be settled by military means. Freedom struggle and terrorism are poles apart and the two cannot be equated. The former is justified while the latter is unacceptable.

India and Pakistan know that terrorism is a double-edged weapon that hurts them both. Acts of terror in Ayodhya or in the State of Gujarat or in the city of Karachi are instances in point. Both India and Pakistan must eschew knee jerk reactions on serious issues.

Disruption of diplomatic, commercial, road and air links was a negative development for both the countries. For Pakistan, in some ways, they were also a blessing in disguise. Its economic resilience was tested and it withstood the revenue and trade shortfalls remarkably well.

Pakistan was sharply reminded of 1970-71 when India had prohibited Pakistani civil aircraft from overflying India. This denial was illegal and India has yet to compensate Pakistan for the revenue losses suffered by it then. In 2003 the pinch was felt by India rather seriously because its 126 flights were affected. As against this, Pakistan had to reroute only half a dozen flights.

Mr Vajpayee’s statement and Mr Jamali’s telephone call initially created a misplaced euphoria in both countries and abroad. This has largely ebbed away because of the contradictory statements issued by Vajpayee and his senior cabinet ministers. Vajpayee had earlier stated that he would avail himself of the third and final chance in his life for settling the Kashmir dispute, failing which he will quit his post. This statement was perhaps meant for internal consumption against the BJP hawks who had earlier sabotaged the Agra summit. It strengthens the popular belief in India that Vajpayee is on the way out either before or soon after the forthcoming elections for reasons of health and age. Mr Advani waits in the wings to replace him. Or, could it be a veiled threat to Pakistan? For the present, let us give Vajpayee the benefit of the doubt and assume that his personal motives are not suspect. However, his ability to take hard decisions is now widely in doubt.

At the fag end of this long and ultra-nationalist political career Vajpayee appears unlikely to go down in history as a regional peacemaker. His being a political hawk and a staunch fundamentalist nationalist, believing in Hindutva, are serious drags on him. The Indian media presents him as the soft face of Hindu nationalism. This is a tactical necessity that does not ring the bell of truth.

In recent weeks India’s cabinet ministers have consistently followed a twin track of policy against Pakistan, perhaps with Mr Vajpayee’s approval and prompting. Mr L.K. Advani recently visited the US. There he accused Pakistan with incendiary outbursts, perhaps to please the senior partner in the now developing Indo-US strategic relationship. He censured Pakistan as a “source of terrorism primarily against India” and an “epicentre of religious extremism.” This uncalled for and absurd outpouring of venom does not inspire much confidence about the prospects of peace and normalization.

Another Indian cabinet minister, George Fernandes, says, “There is no change in our stand that Pakistan must end cross-border terrorism before the resumption of the dialogue process.” Principal secretary to India’s prime minister Brajesh Misra proposes a US-India-Israel nexus against “Islamic militancy’. This sinister formulation links Islam with militancy and implies that all other forms of militancy associated with Christianity, Hinduism, etc., are acceptable. Finally Vajpayee threatens Pakistan thus: “Pakistan was defeated three times in wars and was now preparing for a fourth defeat.” This jingoistic statement from the prime minister himself exposes the mindset of war-mongers in India.

Restoration of normal diplomatic ties, exchange of high commissioners, resumption of rail, road, air and trade links are positive indicators but they dwarf into political gimmicks if these are aimed at sidetracking the Kashmir dispute and deceiving foreign powers that exert pressure on India to start meaningful and structured negotiations with Pakistan. Both countries may start negotiations with an open mind and without laying preconditions. Such attempts failed in the past largely because of India’s negative tactics, excessive expectations and insincerity. India’s close neighbours have been victims of its aggressive designs.

General Musharraf has categorically stated that nothing is happening along the Line of Control (from the Pakistan side). But much is happening across the Line of Control in the Indian held Kashmir where state-sponsored terrorism has put to death over 70,000 Kashmiris. This brutality must end. If that happens, India may open up Kashmir and give the right of self-determination to its oppressed people.

Despite considerable misgivings, the peace process between India and Pakistan deserves a chance. Let the world test Vajpayee’s credentials. The onus of proving his sincerity for settling the Kashmir dispute with Pakistan peacefully and through negotiations lies on him. Pakistan too must make a sincere effort to promote durable peace in South Asia. Such peace can best be promoted when the underlying causes of the bilateral conflict are removed.

Heavens did not fall when India decided to suspend sports links with Pakistan. Let us not degrade ourselves with repeated offers of restarting cricket or hockey matches. The gain or loss on this score is mutual. Games are important but national security is sacrosanct and principles vital.

India must understand clearly and unambiguously that Pakistan is neither Sikkim nor Bhutan. Western reports say that India has transferred stockpiles of its chemical and biological weapons of mass destruction to Bhutan. This will expose Bhutan to global dangers. The road to peace in South Asia passes through Kashmir. Let us travel on this route. India may be better inclined to settle this dispute when Pakistan puts its own house in order. Our first priority should therefore be internal unity, improving literacy rate and achieving economic stability. Our political leaders should display vision with deeds, inside the parliament and in public. For the present their performance at both levels leaves much to be desired.

The writer is a retired general of the Pakistan Army.

The $2,000 hot dog

PRESIDENT Bush says that “the political season will come in its own time,” but the fund-raising season is already in full swing. He collected an astonishing $3.5 million at a reception the other night; $2,000 got you the chance to eat hot dogs and nachos standing up in a hotel ballroom.

Overall, the president’s team expects to vacuum up $20 million in the space of just a few weeks. To put that amount in perspective, consider that the president’s nine Democratic rivals combined raised $25 million during the first three months of the year. Just a few years ago, $20 million was considered a daunting amount, and it was a test of a candidate’s viability to try to collect that sum by Jan. 1 of the election year.

For the 2004 campaign, Mr Bush, taking advantage of a doubling of the individual contribution limit from $1,000 to $2,000, expects to raise at least $170m — overtaking his record $100m haul in 2000. And remember, that’s for a primary “campaign” in which Mr Bush is unopposed.

His Democratic rivals, who don’t have anything like the Bush fund-raising machine and therefore can’t afford to give up federal matching funds, will be limited to raising about $46 million — and they’ll be lucky to get that much.

All this is a symptom of a presidential campaign financing system that is dangerously out of whack. The system gives candidates the opportunity to collect matching funds (up to $250 for every contribution they raise) in return for abiding by spending limits in the primaries.

Then, in the general election, each major-party candidate receives full public funding. But an increasingly front-loaded primary system and the rapidly rising costs of campaigns have made the primary spending limit unrealistically low.

—The Washington Post

A matter of accountability

ONE important plank of the economic policy framework put forth by Pakistan’s present economic managers is adherence to the principles of good governance. Their analysis of past failures hinges a great deal on the lack of transparency and accountability of previous governments that resulted in — according to them — the ‘lost decade’ of the1990s for the country’s economy. Similarly, much hope is pinned on good governance measures adopted by the military government (of which this government’s economic team is an extension) to revive and develop Pakistan’s economy in the future.

The sine qua non of good governance is transparency in both the formulation and execution of government policy. Transparency provides access to information, which in turn reduces asymmetry in information between citizens and the state; creates the underlying basis for accountability and a check on the arbitrary behaviour of the state. Transparency in the conduct of public affairs no doubt leads to controversy at times, but eventually it creates legitimacy for state action and expenditure. Indeed, this is what democracy is all about.

The extent to which good governance measures have been adopted in the recent past is debatable. Both the Standby Agreement and the Poverty Reduction and Growth Facility (PRGF) signed by the military government with the IMF were without any public debate. While it is claimed by the government that the Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper (PRSP) has been debated with civil society groups, many of such organizations claim that rather than debating the issue, the government merely presented the paper to them and was loathe in incorporating their suggestions.

Nevertheless, access to information has substantially improved in the past few years. The quantity and quality of information disseminated by the finance ministry and the State Bank of Pakistan has improved manifold. Between 1988 and 1997, the government signed several agreements with the IMF with important developmental and welfare implications, but all were secret documents. It goes to the credit of Ishaq Dar, finance minister in the Nawaz Sharif government, to have presented the agreement reached with the IMF in 1999 to parliament. Since then, the finance ministry has been readily forthcoming in putting out the details of such agreements for public information.

Similarly, information on development projects from the Planning Commission is much more readily accessible. The Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan (SECP) has also brought about some important reforms towards greater transparency in the corporate sector. This level of access to information was unimaginable a few years ago.

These moves towards transparency, however, have not touched the defence budget as yet. The defence budget is still presented as a one line item in the budget documents and is not debated in parliament. It is instructive to go through the two volumes of the Demands for Grants Document, published by the finance ministry. Whereas the expenditure incurred and the budget for the next year for each ministry and division is provided under different heads in this document, expenditure on ‘defence services’ is under one heading.

While it is theoretically possible to gauge, for instance, the amount spent on the kitchen at Aiwan-e-Sadr, there is no way to know the division of resources among the army, the air force and the navy or allocations between salary and non-salary components.

In the outgoing fiscal year (2002-03), the defence budget consumed roughly one-fourth of the federal government’s current expenditure and about one-third of total revenue receipts. If pensions for defence personnel and servicing of military debt is taken into account, the share of military expenditure jumps even further. The sheer quantum of the military budget thus renders the effort towards good governance in public finances meaningless as long as it remains hidden away as a one line item and is not debated in parliament.

It will be of interest to note that military pensions were separated from the main head of the defence budget in 2000-01. As such, a comparison of pensions of military personnel with the civilian bureaucracy is now possible. In 2001-02, the total pension bill of the federal government was Rs. 33.06 billion. Of this, civil government pensions were a mere Rs.5.37 billion whereas military pensions were a whopping Rs. 27.7 billion. Since employment in the federal government and the armed forces is roughly the same (around 650,000) the fact that pensions of the former are only one-fifth of the latter raises some important questions.

It appears that mid-career retirements in the armed forces are much higher than in the civil government. As such, pensions are given to a greater number of individuals and for a longer period than is the case with civil government. This points to issues of appropriate manpower and human resource planning in the military. However, this can only happen when such issues are debated and there is a willingness to solicit ‘civilian’ advice. This in turn requires that the military acknowledges that it does not hold a monopoly of wisdom on non-military matters.

Much of the debate in Pakistan is about the level of military expenditure rather than its transparency. With regard to the level of military expenditure, the usual justification provided by government mandarins is that the share of defence expenditure has been declining in real terms and that a certain threshold of defence preparedness has to be maintained given the threat from a hostile neighbour with a much larger military force and military capability. Presumably, the only argument regarding transparency is that such information can be used by the enemy and thus harm the country’s security.

Issues of the level of military expenditure and its transparency are inter-linked. The need for transparency, as mentioned above, is all the more important because of the large chunk of resources going to defence. While it is true that the share of defence expenditure in GDP has reduced, the share of government expenditure has also declined from 26 per cent in the early 1990s to about 22 per cent now. On the basis of its declining share in GDP, it is claimed that defence has borne the brunt of the effort towards fiscal deficit reduction along with development expenditure. In fact, over the last decade only the real rate of growth in defence expenditure has decelerated whereas development expenditure has declined in real terms. The Debt Management and Reduction Committee Report - itself a government publication — states: “While defence spending in constant prices more than doubled between 1980-81 and 1999-00, real development expenditure actually declined over that period.”

With regard to military preparedness, it is reasonable to state that most Pakistanis value national security as much as the military establishment does. Rather the issue is that the spending of a substantial chunk of public resources should be subject to public scrutiny — much in the same way as the rest of public expenditure is. Subsidies and rents camouflaged in aggregate numbers can only be unravelled once this information is available. Thereafter, an informed debate can take place about the necessity of such special perks in relation to the imperatives of territorial security. Such a debate can also come to the conclusion that given the security needs at a given point in time, there is a good case to enhance military expenditure.

An important virtue of transparency of public expenditure is its legitimizing character. In the absence of such a disclosure, the legitimacy of military expenditure is compromised. For instance, land use of the military for agricultural and housing purposes, subsidization of essential items through the CSDs and expenditure on garrisons is the subject of intense speculation. Once these expenditures are made public and appropriate justification given for these, it will create greater legitimacy for such expenditure in the public perception, this can happen, provided of course the military establishment thinks it has nothing to hide.

Revealing basic heads of military expenditure and allocations in greater detail is not treated secretively in other democratic countries — not just in industrialized countries, but even in most Third World democracies also.

A detailed defence budget is presented to parliament in India and is approved after a debate. Details of expenditure of all the three armed forces are given under thirteen different heads, which include salaries, pensions, transportation, research and development, etc. Similarly, a separate development budget that provides details of arms procurement as well as construction, land acquisition, purchase of vehicles, etc is also presented to parliament.

If details of India’s military spending is available to the public at large, what conceivable reason can there be on the Pakistani side for not revealing such details? Common sense suggests that details of the budget mentioned above do not disclose any strategic and tactical military secrets. Obviously, certain sensitive information - such as intelligence spending - need not be made public, but it can be open to scrutiny by a parliamentary committee whose members are under oath not to disclose their findings. This is the norm in countries that practise democracy.

Adherence to the principles of transparency and accountability is in the long-term interest of all societies and countries. It is an opportunity for the military establishment to come clean on the large chunk of public money that is allocated to them. For Pakistan’s economic managers - in spite of the fact that they are all beholden to the military establishment for their jobs - it is important to establish their credibility as to good governance on the entire portfolio of public spending. For opposition legislators, this is one more avenue in their struggle to wrest control of policy-making from the non-elective institutions of the state. Such transparency is, however, most relevant for ordinary Pakistanis simply because it is their hard-earned incomes that finance military expenditure.

Pickles, no antibiotics

McDonald’s, chased by you-made-me-fat lawsuits and animal-rights protesters, has responded with a very good deed. It is ordering its main meat suppliers to phase out the use of antibiotics by 2004.

The fast-food chain, one of the biggest U.S. purchasers of meat, may be triggering an end to the era of dangerous overuse of antibiotics.

The livestock industry began using the drugs in the 1950s and soon became addicted. Antibiotics help fatten animals for slaughter and compensate for the crowded conditions on farms that are breeding grounds for disease.

Today, 70 per cent of all antibiotics consumed in the United States are mixed without a prescription into farm animal feed, according to the Union of Concerned Scientists. That amounts to 24 million pounds a year and a tidy profit for drug companies. But scientists warn that dosing animals with antibiotics to accelerate weight gain has had two bad effects:

When humans eat animals that have been regularly fed antibiotics, bacteria in the humans tend over time to develop immunity to the antibiotics. This forces doctors to prescribe larger doses of antibiotics to cure bacterial diseases.

Even more worrying, livestock that has been bulked up with antibiotics can transmit antibiotic-resistant forms of infections such as salmonella to humans.

Antibiotics wipe out most of their target bacteria on first use, but the few that survive begin an evolutionary process toward drug resistance. They may become more virulent in the process. The medical journal Clinical Infectious Diseases has concluded that agricultural use of antibiotics “increases the number, severity and duration of infections.”

McDonald’s, which worked closely with the nonprofit group Environmental Defence over the last year on cutting out antibiotics, is right to insist that farmers end a practice that harms animals and humans.

— Los Angeles Times