| September 20, 2003 | Saturday | Rajab 22, 1424 |
To send a letter to the Editor
Click here
US F-16 offer to India
A soft-spoken diplomat
WTO and developing countries
What is our selection criterion?
Musharraf on BBC
Gulshan road’s condition
DHA water charges
Beware of muggers
‘Unsavoury visit’
‘Boys and mountains’
Foreign faculty hiring programme
ONCE again, the heat is on Pakistan, and this time the Al Qaeda connection is being pinned on the officialdom. It all began with a clash on the Afghanistan-Pakistan border between Al Qaeda members and American troops, in which fire by the latter killed several Pakistan soldiers, an incident officially waved off as an accident.
Then came the report in an international magazine that several military officers were being involved with the Taliban. This was sort of confirmed by the military which admitted that several officers were being held for questioning in this regard. Soon after that came a new book which claimed that our late Air Chief Marshal was linked to Al Qaeda. The latest salvo is the mysterious surface of a declassified intelligence document in America which states that Pakistan helped the Al Qaeda to launch their operations in Afghanistan in the 1990s.
All this clearly looks like pressure being exerted on Pakistan for something. What is that something is the interesting question. Is it pressure on Pakistan to send its troops to Iraq? Or, is it pressure on Pakistan to scale down its nuclear programme? (Pressure on Iran in this regard has now already surfaced.) Or, is it merely pressure on Pakistan to tighten further its crackdown on any remnant Al Qaeda sympathizers in the country?
The other interesting question which a Dawn report on Sept 14 has raised is, why did the president suddenly advance his address to the nation by two days (from Sept 15 to Sept 13)? And then on the day that he was originally supposed to address the nation (Sept 15), he chaired a Corps Commanders’ meeting at which he was quoted by a newspaper to have said that if the enemy tried to launch any misadventure, the valiant armed forces of Pakistan would retaliate with the same force. What does all this mean?
American troops’ entry into Iraq had generated fears about who will be the next — Iran and Pakistan being amongst the countries that were widely talked about then. Well, Iran is certainly feeling the heat now, and so does Pakistan. It is certainly hoped that all the above-mentioned recent happenings are just mere political posturing and not indicative of more ominous situations ahead for Pakistan.
ADIL RAZA
Islamabad
THIS is with reference to the news-item “US F-16 offer to India resented” (Aug 5).
The US has refused delivery of several squadrons of the same kind of aircraft to Pakistan, but now it has offered to sell such aircraft to India. This exposes the hollowness of the US-Pakistan friendship.
Similarly, Gen Musharraf described his visit to Camp David as successful. His request for delivery of F-16s to Pakistan was turned down, whereas India has been offered F-16s without their prime minister visiting the US and requesting for the sale of planes.
It is about time our leaders realized that merely fulfilling the demand of the US would not make us their ally. The reason India is getting so much attention from the US is because of its economy. We must not forget that during the Cold War we were allies of the US while India was an ally of the former Soviet Union. Now that the Soviet Union is no more, global politics has changed and enemies have become friends.
The US and India have put the past behind and are developing close ties. India is becoming a strategic partner of the US not because its military strength but because it has a huge market which US wishes to explore. America has economic interests in India and there is no way it will give it up just to oblige Pakistan.
Our leaders need to re-think their foreign policy. We must try to be in peace with India. If China and India, and the US and Russia can become friends, why cannot India and Pakistan put their differences asides? Our leaders also must realize that unless and until we become economically strong, there is no way we can develop close ties with foreign nations. The strength of a country is judged by its economy and not by its military strength. If we are economically strong, our leaders won’t need to rush to foreign countries to get their demands fulfilled as it would be met while they are within their own country.
ANIL KHAN LUNI
Karachi
I HAD the opportunity to meet the Indian high commissioner, Mr Shiv Shankar Menon, by a pleasant co-incidence while attending a dinner party arranged by the ambassador of the Sultanate of Oman, Mr Salim bin Mohammad bin Salim Al-Wahaibi. Mr Menon was listening attentively to a person belonging to some sensitive agency, who sought unanimity. Both looked great when the discourse took place. One felt highly impressed by Mr Menon and the temperate way in which he talked.
So far, things are going on smoothly between India and Pakistan despite the continued media war between the officials of the two countries. Ostensibly, Mr Menon seems to be unmoved. Probably, he considers what is going on in the media is business as usual. One, however, hopes that sanity would prevail and that the two countries would set aside the media war and discuss the core issue of Kashmir in a business-like manner.
Mr Menon is capable of achieving that feat. After all, he has been a success as Indian ambassador to China and Israel. Through his diplomatic skills, he has been able to bring about a new dimension to the Indian ties with Beijing and Tel Aviv. Mr Menon was the choice of Indian Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee who selected him on the basis of his diplomatic skills. Hence, once the opportunity comes, he is expected to play his innings in the most effective manner.
The Indian ambassador is facing a hectic time as he goes about reorganizing the Indian mission badly affected on account of the deterioration of relations with Pakistan. After the December 13, 2001, incident, the strength of the missions was halved. It was further cut twice. From an effective strength of 110 each, now the number of staff in the missions is down to 45 on both sides. Vacancies that arose during the period of tension have not been filled up.
Reportedly, Prime Minister Mir Zafarullah Khan Jamali has proposed restoration of the original strength, but India has yet not responded to the suggestion. Mr Menon might take some time to consider the Pakistan proposal. One would really wish him good luck.
DR JASSIM TAQUI
Islamabad
FOR the developing nations, which were united as G23 at the WTO meet at Cancun, ‘no deal was better than a bad deal’ and, so, they allowed the talks to fail instead of yielding to the blandishments of the powerful US-EU combine. That they could stand firm and united under severe pressures exerted by the rich countries is indeed a gain in itself. As Rahim Panjwani succinctly and graphically puts it: “It is not surprising that at Cancun the developing countries finally said enough is enough” (letter, Sept 17).
The GATT, the earlier incarnation of the WTO, and the Bretton Woods institutions were created soon after World War II when the advanced nations, in particular the US, realized that the massive industrial capacity they had created during war time was proving to be a nightmare of a surplus which badly needed outlets for consumption. The developing countries were the obvious choice.
The GATT became a convenient forum for arm-twisting of the weaker countries, including Pakistan and India, by the industrialized nations. This went on for some years until the more rational ‘rules-based multilateral trading system’ in the form of the WTO was created. Even so, the inequality between richer and poorer nations in the deliberations continued until Seattle, four years ago, where there were massive demonstrations challenging the supremacy of the richer nations.
And now the hands of the developing nations have been further strengthened at Cancun. The US-EU nations must realize that the massive subsidies they provide for agricultural operations, cotton in particular, besides being unethical, are against the interests of very poor nations, Burkino Faso being just one example.
KANGAYAM R. RANGASWAMY
Madison, WI, USA
THIS is with reference to the comments by Amir Sohail, the chief selector of the Pakistan cricket team (Dawn, Sept 19), on Mushtaq Ahmed’s 100 wickets in the English county season. “He has taken a lot of wickets for Sussex in the county championship and we can’t ignore that,” chief selector Aamir Sohail said. “But he has been out for a long time and we need to see if he is bowling well enough to be pitted against South Africa.”
Despite accomplishing a marvellous feat in England in this summer, poor Mushtaq has to prove once again to Mr Sohail whether he is bowling well enough to be included in the playing eleven against South Africa. What kind of a selecting criterion Mr Sohail follows, we cricket lovers fail to understand.
On the one hand, Junaid Zia without a first-class record was selected in three One-day Internationals just because he is the son of the PCB chairman and despite his poor performance will find a place in the playing eleven again, and, on the other hand, Mushtaq, a winning spin bowler who helped Pakistan win the 1992 Cricket World Cup, has to prove and justify his selection despite his recent form in county cricket. What kind of an oxymoron statement is this?
If Mushtaq had been a citizen of any other country, he would have been an automatic selection in the team after his recent performance. It is this unreasonable and unjustifiable policy of our leaders and policymakers (not only of cricket but of other public institutions as well) that Pakistan is struggling. Unless merit is adopted as the sole criterion for selection, our country will never become a successful state.
NASIR SHAHAB
Columbia, MO, USA
THE BBC interviewed President Musharraf on the second anniversary of the 9/11 incidents. Musharraf gave an in-depth to the West’s perception of Islam and Muslims’ perception of the West. I had an opportunity to watch his whole interview after two or three days of criticism in various circles about some parts of his interview.
To me there was nothing objectionable in that interview. Gen spoke well on all issues relating to the Muslim world and its relations with the West. How could one dub him traitor while he was defending Islam? He clearly stressed the very need to differentiate between Islam and what is called terrorism. I congratulate Gen Musharraf for such enlightened views. He must continue his march towards modernizing Muslims in accordance with the requirements of the present-day world.
He is well aware of the situation of Muslims and, therefore, always wants them to take wise steps to live in the world in a such a way as would preserve their present for their future generations. Once Gen Musharraf showed his deep concern over the economic decline of Muslims in the world. He said the Muslim world has a GDP of $1,200 billion while Germany has a GDP of $2,500 billion and Japan a GDP of $5,000 billion.
The Muslim world needs more leaders of Gen Musharraf’s calibre and vision.
SYED MUZAMMIL HUSSAIN
Islamabad
I AM writing these lines to draw the attention of the Karachi city government to the pathetic condition of the main road in Block 13-D/2, Gulshan-i-Iqbal, Karachi.
This locality is just one kilometre from the prime minister’s residence (Jamali House, Block 13-D/1, Gulshan-i-Iqbal). This is one of the most used roads of the area where two main bus routes — 7H and 6B — end at the Rufi Corner stop. More than 1,500 families living in various apartment complexes and houses use the road.
One fails to find even one yard of unbroken patch on this road. When all other roads of Gulshan-i-Iqbal are being either repaired or completely rebuilt, why this road is being neglected, I wonder.
Owing to the monsoon, the road condition has become worse. When a lot of money is spent on street-lights and widening the road just where the prime minister lives, what about this one-kilometre-long patch where the general public lives? I request the city government’s representatives to visit the road and do the needful.
FAUZIA QURESHI
Karachi
YOUR editorial (Sept 12) about the cantonment boards was timely and thought-provoking. I hope the government will do something in this regard.
You have mentioned about the Clifton Cantonment Board which has yet to repair in its jurisdiction roads damaged by the recent rains. Despite this they have recently raised taxes. Water charges in the DHA area have been increased by nearly 33 per cent, even though the water supply is irregular and inadequate, and residents have to buy water from tankers to meet their requirements.
The KWSB from which the Clifton Cantonment Board purchases water in bulk charges much less in areas under its jurisdiction. There is, therefore, no justification for such a high increase in the water charges by the DHA.
M. FASIHUDDIN
Karachi
THIS refers to the above-captioned letter by Mr Sultan Haider (Sept 8). I would like to thank the writer on behalf of all avid readers of Dawn for keeping us updated on the latest techniques of muggers in Karachi.
For their safety I would like to inform the readers of two new techniques of muggers. In a recent incident, a young man, wearing a jacket, knocked at the window of my friend’s car pretending as an old acquaintance. As soon as, the window glass of the car was wound down, the mugger unzipped his jacket showing a gun and asked my friend to give everything he had, including a mobile phone, cash, a wristwatch.
In another incident, a motorcyclist going ahead of a car suddenly slowed down, stopped his bike in front of the car, started behaving as if something were wrong with the bike, and with the movement of his hand requested the driver to just hold on. Shortly, another motorcyclist came, stopped by the driver’s window and at gunpoint snatched all valuables. This incident happened at the roundabout of Liaqatabad.
The muggers seemed educated and intelligent. If their energy and intelligence are diverted towards some constructive work, they can become good citizens. People at the helm of affairs should ponder on this issue, so that we can become a developed country soon.
DR HASAN THARANI
Karachi
YOUR editorial titled, “Unsavoury visit” (Sept 10) depicts nothing but double standard on your part. When Pakistan itself is debating whether to recognize Israel, why do you take exception to a visit to India by the Israeli PM?
To characterize the relationship as based on “religious ideology” is also ridiculous. Both Israel and India are victims of terrorism. There is, therefore, a natural association between the two and there is a lot to learn by each other’s experience.
MANOJ DESHPANDE
California, USA
PLEASE refer to the above-titled column by Mr Hafizur Rahman published in Dawn on Sept 10.
I wish to congratulate the writer on this very fine column. Most of the columns written by Mr Rahman deal with practical problems of Pakistani life and with genuine intentions of reforming society and correcting the ills which afflict our society.
It will be very nice if the Adventure Foundation of Pakistan opens its chapters in all major cities of the country. Will Mr Rahman be so kind as to publish the email address of the Adventure Foundation in his next column, or give his own email address?
ZAINUL ABEDIN
Karachi
THE foreign faculty hiring programme has earned a considerable criticism from various quarters raising some of its problematic aspects. I would like to add one more brick to the existing wall of criticism pointing out to various limitations that it entails.
I would like to quote a chat that I had with a faculty member (a senior lecturer) at the University of Leeds, England. When I told him that our government was planning to hire teachers from foreign universities, and whether or not he would avail himself of the chance, he asked as to how much money he would get. I replied, maybe, around £2,000 a month. His response was that he would certainly avail himself of the chance if he was given more than that amount coupled with two months paid holiday in a year, and if he was posted in Islamabad, because for security reasons he would not take a chance of going to any other city of the country. He also expressed his plans of spending money that he would save from the job.
This fact reminded me that foreign scholars, if come to our country at all, would certainly come on terms and conditions of their own choosing, giving priority to their personal well-being and security. It raises various questions such as: would our government be able to please every single foreign faculty by fulfilling their requirements? If not, it would be very hard to get capable minds to meet the requirements at home.
The foreign faculty are efficient because there many checks and balances on them and they are provided with sophisticated technology to carry out research. They are given research targets and their productivity is checked every now and then by their superiors. How would our government gauge the success of their training to our local faculty? Would they be provided with the same technology as they have in their own countries? If not, how would the training programme produce the desired results?
It would be highly appreciated if the policymakers take into consideration all the pros and cons of this idea, which might become counter-productive by leaving the local faculty in the utter sense of frustration and inferiority. The billions of rupees that would be spent on this programme can be materialized by allocating scholarships to young and talented local faculty of our universities and providing research facilities at our alma maters.
The more our faculty members get world exposure, the more they will be refined and more their outlook would be changed. Foreign scholarships would not only allow them to get degrees but also reshape their attitudes towards education and society. Moreover, if the teaching departments of our universities can be equipped with the latest technology, computer clusters and English language centres, it can also help produce future scholars.
RAFIQUE MEMON
Leeds, UK
You can also send letters to the Editor
Just send your message to the following address:
Make sure you include your full name, postal address, e-mail address, and in the case of Pakistan your day-time telephone number.