| 24 June 2004 | Thursday | 05 Jamadi-ul-Awwal 1425 |
Not a real issue of discrimination
Approving torture
Budget and the IMF's advice
There has been an alarming increase in terrorist incidents in Karachi in the last two months. While there is no shortage of theories, and fingers are being pointed at various internal as well as external forces, no satisfactory explanation has been offered so far as to who could be behind these multiple acts of terrorism.
Some arrests have been made by the police, which claim to have unearthed the motives for the crimes. However, over a period of time, a degree of scepticism has developed about such claims by our investigative agencies.
Experience shows that after each such incident, the "usual suspects" are arrested, and blame is apportioned on certain internal and external forces. Our leaders go through a ritualistic exercise, vowing to unearth the culprits immediately and giving them exemplary punishment.
But there is little actual follow-up. Then, a new outrage takes place, which clouds the memory of the previous unsolved crime. And so it goes on and on.
Terrorism in one form or another has been witnessed in Karachi for nearly two decades, but the law and order situation had improved in the last few years, until the recent spurt of terrorism.
Are the various incidents of the last two months inter-linked or are there multiple reasons for these outrages? A definitive answer can only be given by the police through professional investigations based on solid evidence and facts.
However, the recent sectarian killings and suicide bombings suggest the involvement of Islamic extremists in these incidents. Even though India, the US and the "hidden hand of secret agencies" often figure among the usual suspects, the fact is that none of them can find suicide bombers to be carrying out such grisly deeds.
The suicide bombers are mostly religious fanatics, driven by misguided ideological considerations, including the promise that their reward will be admission to paradise. Some of our religious leaders keep claiming that such terrorists cannot be Muslims as no Muslim can kill worshippers in a mosque.
This is as it should be, but the reality is that a great many Muslims are being brain-washed by religious bigots and fanatics who are giving sermons in mosques or lecturing in madressahs, spewing hatred against other sects, declaring them to be apostates and "outside the pale of Islam."
These preachers convince their semi-literate followers that it is an obligation to kill members of the other sect.The other dimension of this fanaticism is political brain-washing, in which young zealots are made to think that terrible injustice is being done to the Muslims by Israel, the US, India and Russia so that every kind of terrorist action is justified in order to take revenge.
For this purpose, hate propaganda is drummed up and a totally one-sided and highly exaggerated picture of the atrocities and injustices committed by these countries is drilled into the minds of young zealots.
Suicide bombers are thus convinced that they are carrying out a just mission, indeed a divine mission. While setting out on their final missions, some are said to have told their dear ones that they would soon be meeting them in paradise.
This kind of fanaticism and extremism has been growing in Muslim circles in Pakistan and elsewhere during the last few decades. Madressahs and Islamic parties have played a key role in the rise of Islamic militancy.
The Taliban movement, which was a product of the Pakistani madressahs, even managed to seize power in Afghanistan and ruled it for about five years. Pakistani religious parties openly supported the kind of obscurantist Islam enforced by the xenophobic Taliban regime.
It also gave a sanctuary to Osama bin Laden and his Al Qaeda terrorists, which led to the 9/11 attacks. Thereafter, the US declared a "global war against terrorism" and launched the invasion of Afghanistan.
This development put Pakistan in an unenviable position. For strategic reasons, namely, the need to have a friendly Afghanistan on its western flank, three successive Pakistani governments (headed by Benazir Bhutto, Nawaz Sharif and Musharraf) had sought to placate the Taliban regime.
But after 9/11, there was no option but to change this policy. If President Musharraf had not made a U-turn towards the Taliban regime, Pakistan's own security could have been gravely imperilled and it could have been even attacked.
The Taliban regime suffered a quick military defeat, but it is clear that some remnants of the Taliban and Al Qaeda have survived, including Osama himself, and are still operating in Afghanistan and the neighbouring tribal area of Pakistan.
They feel embittered by Pakistan's "betrayal" and aim to destabilize the Musharraf regime. The two recent assassination attempts against Musharraf are believed to be the handiwork of these elements. Besides, they have been engaged in other terrorist acts in Pakistan.
These activities forced Islamabad - which was in any event under pressure from the US and the Karzai regime in Afghanistan - to launch an armed operation in the Wana tribal area where some Pakistani tribals, notably Nek Mohammad, are said to have given sanctuary to supporters of Al Qaeda and the Taliban, as well as Chechen, Uzbek and other Muslim rebels fighting against regimes in their respective countries.
When the military operation started, Nek Mohammad threatened retaliation elsewhere in Pakistan. It is probable that the recent attack on the Corps Commander in Karachi and other terrorist incidents were a direct consequence of the Wana operation.
Looking back, Pakistan's support for Islamic militancy can be traced back to the 1979 Soviet occupation of Afghanistan that led to a jihad by the Afghan people to throw out the Soviet invaders.
Not only Muslim countries but also the majority of states in the world supported them. The US took the lead in supporting the Mujahideen because of its own global rivalry with the Soviet Union.
Pakistan was actively supporting the Mujahideen because the arrival of the Red Army at the doors of Pakistan was seen as a direct threat to Pakistan's security. There was the perception that the Soviet Union was an expansionist power, whose thrust would not remain confined to Afghanistan but would next target Pakistan and the Persian Gulf. Incidentally, Iran, China and Saudi Arabia too felt the same way.
Thus, there was a convergence of interests around the world about supporting the Afghan Mujahideen. The Afghans were fiercely loyal to Islam and could be mobilized in the name of jihad. The US, Pakistan and others were, therefore, willing to support the jihadist approach.
However, in the case of Pakistan, under its military ruler, President Ziaul Haq, strategic motives were supplemented by ideological considerations as well. Ziaul Haq had Islamic fundamentalist leanings and depended on the Islamic parties in Pakistan for providing him his narrow political base.
This is the background in which the madressahs got full official support and played a key role in the Afghan jihad. Islamic militants from Arab countries, including Osama bin Laden, also aided the Afghan Mujahideen. Some of the Mujahideen leaders were received in the White House by President Reagan and hailed as freedom fighters.
It was not realized at the time by all concerned that this patronage of Islamic militancy would produce a kind of a Frankenstein that would later seek to devour its own creators.
The eventual Soviet decision in 1988 to withdraw from Afghanistan was based primarily on diverse economic, political and strategic reasons. The Soviets were not militarily defeated in Afghanistan: the Mujahideen were never able to capture any important town from the Soviets.
The military weakness of the Mujahideen was proved by the fact that the Communist regime of Najibullah survived for nearly three years after the Soviet withdrawal and eventually fell because of its own internal dissensions.
Nonetheless, a myth developed that the Mujahideen had defeated a superpower in Afghanistan. This has since become a part of the psyche of the Islamic extremists, giving them an exaggerated notion of their armed prowess viz. that if they can defeat one superpower (the USSR), they can also defeat the remaining sole superpower (the US).
This psychology led to the disastrous miscalculation by the Taliban regime to go to battle against the US after 9/11, which ended in the regime's quick military defeat.
While nearly all Muslim governments supported the US operation against the Taliban regime, Muslim public opinion was angered by what was seen as an attack on a Muslim country by a non-Muslim power.
This resulted in the growth of anti-Americanism in Muslim societies. The 'hate America' campaign has since been gaining ground, accentuated greatly by the US attack on Iraq in 2003, which was undertaken in defiance of international opinion and without any UN sanction.
Above all, it is the Israeli oppression of the Palestinian people that sustains the 'hate America' campaign. Muslim public opinion is outraged by what it regards as Israeli state terrorism against the Palestinian people.
Since the US is seen as the main supporter and protector of Israel, each Israeli act of persecution of the Palestinians generates more anti-Americanism. By the same logic, pro-US Muslim regimes have also become the targets of attacks.
Moreover, in this atmosphere, many Muslims condone the gruesome acts of suicide bombers in Palestine, Iraq and elsewhere. Thus, Islamic extremists are able to flourish and secure new converts. The terrorism in Karachi should be seen against this particular background.
This vicious cycle can be broken by adopting the kind of two-pronged strategy advocated by President Musharraf. On the one hand, the US has to change its policy of blind support for Israel and must instead pressure Tel Aviv to find a fair solution of the Palestinian problem.
The US and its coalition troops must also get out of Iraq as early as possible. Similarly, efforts should be intensified to resolve the problems in Kashmir, Afghanistan and Chechnya.
On the other hand, Muslim states must take resolute measures to end Islamic terrorism. In this context, extremist groups must be curbed including action against the madressahs and religious groups, which indoctrinate young people and turn them into zealots. Those preaching sectarian hatred must be given exemplary punishment.
In fact, extremism is a curse, which is destroying the very fibre of Muslim societies. It is producing an atmosphere of fanaticism, bigotry and narrow mindedness. Unless these trends are reversed, Muslims will get left far behind the rest of the world.
The image of Islam in the world has taken a serious battering which is hurting not only Muslim states but also Muslim people all over the world. Islamic extremists are thus proving to be a greater danger to Islam than the machinations of non-Muslim forces.
The writer is a former ambassador.
Not a real issue of discrimination
In Britain's High Court last week a 15-year-old schoolgirl lost her battle with school authorities to be allowed to wear a full-length jilbab to school. The verdict has been seized by Muslim groups (and some civil rights activists) as Britain's equivalent of the French ban on headscarves in schools. Is Shabina Begum's case one of civil rights curtailed or civil rights gone mad?
Consider the facts. Denbigh High School in Luton has many Muslim pupils. For those wishing to dress in an Islamic manner, the school has permitted shalwar kameez and scarves as part of the school uniform. That decision was endorsed by the school's Muslim and non-Muslim governors.
Many Muslim girls study at Denbigh High wearing shalwar kameez and head scarves. Can anyone honestly say there is anything un-Islamic in the school's policy? Anything that prevents Muslim girls from dressing modestly as demanded by their religion?
Along comes thirteen-year old Shabina Begum. For her first two years at the school she was quite happy to wear shalwar kameez and headscarf. At the beginning of her third year she abruptly switched to the full-length jilbab.
When the school told her to change, on the grounds of safety and because it was too distinctive from the other pupils - even the Muslims - she refused. She has not been to school for the two years since then, such is her determination to win her way. Last week's court ruling appears to have finally put an end to her campaign - or at least to her legal campaign for she has vowed to fight on.
Shabina Begum could deserve credit for her grit and will, but what about her cause? Is it a human rights cause? Is it an Islamic cause? 'This decision doesn't help integrate Muslims within our society'.
'Britain being a secular country, it would be expected to give Begum freedom to practise her belief as well as to express herself in any way she wants in appearance. Unfortunately for her, she is a Muslim.' 'It is a poignant thought that after their parents' generation has left so much behind, the strongest willed in upholding Islam are these courageous children.'
Listening to some of the views expressed since the verdict, one would think it was both: a young girl fighting for the human right to dress as she wants, a Muslim girl fighting discrimination in a non-Muslim school through the non-Muslim legal system of a non-Muslim country.
Despite the attention, support, and controversy that Shabina Begum's case has attracted - all typical responses to injustice - this is neither a human rights cause nor an Islamic cause.
Take human rights. The fundamental point of a school uniform is that it is something all pupils have to wear. Children cannot opt out at will because they don't like some part of it, or because they prefer to wear something else. A uniform is precisely that: uniform - everyone wears the same thing.
Yes, the school has an onus to ensure that the uniform it stipulates is appropriate and does not cause embarrassment to the pupils or violate their religious and other rights.
But as long as those concerns are addressed - as they have been in Denbigh High - the pupils have no choice but to wear the school uniform. If they don't like it, they should find another school.
Now take Islamic rights. Denbigh High's uniform policy does not violate the Islamic rights of Muslim girls to dress in a modest manner. One doesn't need to be a scholar of the Quran and Sunnah to know that Islam has not stipulated a particular garment for Muslim women to wear.
The injunction is simply for them to dress modestly, whether that be in a shalwar kameez, a jilbab, the Malaysian skirt, tunic and scarf - or any other garment that covers them up. To insist that the jilbab is the Islamic form of dress is a total misinterpretation and misrepresentation of religion.
[As for the argument that shalwar kameez is a 'cultural dress' while the jilbab is a 'religious dress' - it is too ridiculous to even merit a response.] Neither Shabina Begum's human rights nor her Islamic rights have been violated.
Comparisons with the French ban on headscarves are thus inappropriate and disingenuous. They are an attempt to merge a cause (Shabina's) that smacks of pushing for the sake of pushing, with one (France's) that represents a genuine and indisputable violation of rights.
This brings us to the crux of the matter: should Muslim energies be focused on non-issues like that of Shabina's jilbab, or should they focus on real issues of discrimination like that in France? The sad reality is that there are infinite other genuine causes out there of discrimination and oppression against Muslims.
Religious and racial discrimination, where people with Muslim names are fired from their jobs and denied interviews for new ones; where people of Muslim appearance are told to get off planes because the other passengers don't feel comfortable.
Judicial and legal discrimination, where Muslims (especially after 9/11) are locked up without charge, trial or avenues for redress. Political discrimination, where Muslims are denied the right to vote and express their will. Discrimination by the state, such as in Israel, where Muslims are denied the basic right to live on their own land.
And there is oppression such as that in the Occupied Territories, where civilian homes are bulldozed, children killed, and huge imprisoning fences constructed. Oppression such as in Iraq where civilians are targeted in military offensives, and prisoners are subjected to unimaginable abuse. Oppression such as in Gujarat, where the survivors of 2002's anti-Muslim pogrom still dare not return to their homes.
Many of the perpetrators of such discrimination and oppression are non-Muslims. But a shamefully large number are Muslim. The democratic rights of many Arab populations, for example, are being trampled underfoot by Arab, Muslim leaders (albeit, usually with support from the West).
The recent sectarian killings in Karachi - like the many hundreds of others before - were in vast part the work of (so-called) Muslims. And who gave George Bush the excuse to launch his 'war on terror', or 'war on Muslims' as it has become in practice? - Osama bin Laden and the other murderous killers in Al Qaeda responsible for 9/11.
These are the real causes that the Muslims have to fight: these are the real perpetrators - within and outside the ummah - that they have to take on. Don't deflect attention, don't waste energy, fighting for ridiculously petty non-issues like Shabina Begum's right to wear a jilbab, and taking on non-combatants like Denby High School. Fight the real battles.
E-mail: iffatidris2000@yahoo.co.uk.
Approving torture
President Ronald Reagan was a gifted leader and great American who personified many of his nation's finest qualities. Though I sometimes criticized his policies, particularly his missteps in Muslim World, I always admired and respected him.
Reagan's death reminds us that neither of his successors have proven worthy of America's highest office. Particularly so President George W. Bush, who desperately keeps trying to wrap himself in Reagan's mantle.
This contrast became even starker recently, after the US media revealed more shocking evidence linking senior officials of the Bush administration to widespread abuse and torture of Muslim captives.
The scandal began by the leak of a 56-page legal memo commissioned by US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld seeking to justify torture of prisoners at the Guantanamo prison camp.
Further legal memos from the White House, Pentagon, Justice Department and CIA were revealed that sanctioned torture and sought ways to evade the 1996 US War Crimes Act, which carries the death penalty, and the Geneva Conventions banning mistreatment, degradation or torture of prisoners.
Administration lawyers claimed that because the nation's security was at risk, President Bush had authority as commander -in-chief to approve torture or "severe interrogation," and to order US and international laws, be ignored.
As it so often does, the Bush administration was following the lead of its political role model, Israel, whose high court has legalized the torture of Arab suspects.
The US Justice Department, which is supposed to uphold the law, actually sent a memo worthy of the Nazi legal system contending that the Geneva Conventions and US laws did not apply to "terrorism suspects."
Any American may apparently be arrested as a "terrorism suspect," and tortured, according to Justice lawyers. Replace "terrorism suspect" "enemy of the people" and you have Stalin's Soviet tyranny.
At first, the right to torture applied only to the Guantanamo gulag. Then, it was extended to Afghanistan. Then to Bush's so-called "war on terror" in Iraq. Torture and/or brutal mistreatment of Muslim captives suspected of 'terrorism' is now common in US-run prisons abroad and, increasingly, at home. The full sickening story of the torture and rape of male and female prisoners in US-run Iraqi prisons still remains to be told.
History shows once a regime authorizes torture, it comes to be widely used against all sorts of suspects, criminal as well as political. Arabs, Pakistanis and Indians know this all too well.
Even worse, 90 per cent of all those arrested by the US as "terrorism suspects" turned out to be completely innocent. When legal and moral constraints are removed, or undermined, states run rampant over their people's rights.
Both Nazi Germany and Stalin's Soviet Union embarked on their monstrous crimes after cooperative lawyers set the legal stage for their actions. Pakistan's legal system has become adept at manipulating laws to suit the latest government's commands.
Lawyers who collaborate in subverting laws and human rights are as much criminals as those who commit torture and rights abuses. They should be disbarred and prosecuted.
As a former US army soldier, I am outraged by the Bush administration's grave violations of the Geneva Conventions, actions sure to encourage brutal mistreatment of captured US military personnel.
Bush and Rumsfeld claim Taliban and Al Qaeda fighters are not covered by the laws of war. But what about the 20,000 US mercenaries ('civilian contractors') now in Iraq, or non-uniformed US Special Forces and CIA teams?
This scandal is the direct result of Bush's visceral contempt for international law. No wonder he sneeringly rejected the newly created international war crimes tribunal. Human rights groups are now calling for war crimes charges to be brought against members of the Bush administration.
Behind all this is an even more disturbing message being pushed by Bush's entourage: national security is expressed through the leader's will, trumping all other concerns, justifying all actions, no matter how illegal. We have heard this sinister argument before in fascist Italy and Germany. It violates everything the United States holds sacred.
I'm sickened seeing the nation that I held to be the world's torchbearer of democracy and human rights, advocating legalized torture. I cannot imagine Ronald Reagan ever befouling his own or his nation's honour by advocating such crimes.
The dots have connected. They lead from grinning Pvt Lynndie England and her naked Iraqi prisoner on a leash at Abu Gharib prison right up to the White House and Pentagon. -Copyright Eric S. Margolis 2004
Budget and the IMF's advice
The government is not satisfied with the reactions of the politicians, business and industry leaders and the public to the budget as received through the normal communication channels as the Press, TV and radio. It now wants to ascertain public reaction through a comprehensive questionaire.
But again it has a limited access. It is approaching, essentially through the computer, the literate and the better educated persons who can react to the budget intelligently and analytically as well as to the questions on democracy, but even this small section has a limited understanding of the intricacies of the budget to say much about areas that do not affect them directly or benefit them.
But the results of this approach can be interesting if it can help some people think of major economic problems analytically. Some of the organisations such as the Federation of Chambers of Commerce and Industry and its provincial chambers which welcomed the budget earlier with open arms now seem to be disenchanted with the budget.
After studying its details they have come to the conclusion that they had expected far more from the finance minister in terms of tax relief or other benefits than offered now. That much has not been forthcoming.
Many of them had targeted the 0.1 per cent capital value tax on shares as the symbol of their dissatisfaction or disillusionment. Their assumption was right that the actual collection of the CVT would be far less than Rs. 5 to Rs. 7 billion.
It was expected that after the levy of this nominal tax the actual turnover of the shares will be far less than what the wild speculation had promoted. The speculation was merry gambling doing away with what is a good thing for the stock exchanges and the country.
The country needs a real investors stock market and not the one in which many millions of shares are reported to have been traded, while the reality is something far different.
The realisation has come that the finance minister has announced in toto small tax relief when he said the total cost of all the relief he has given would be Rs 7.5 billion in a budget of Rs 903 billion. He made the longest speech to make the smallest of concessions in tax relief.
What he has done is to cut out a great deal of red tape and end the many of the needless regulations that had bound trade and industry down particularly the small and medium scale enterprises. Trade and industry have welcomed that relief which is essential for a free economy.
The chairman of the Central Board of Revenue Yusuf Abdullah says: "the government has taken bold steps to meet the demands of industry and the private sector by trying to simplify procedures, removing irritants and rationalizing the taxation system." Small and medium enterprises which were under a heavy procedural pressure would not take a sigh of relief, he says.
And the president of the Rawalpindi Chamber of Commerce and Industry Husain Ahmed says SMEs are playing an important role in the socio-economic development of the country and providing 54 per cent of the total employment.
He says there are about 400,000 small-scale manufacturing units and 600 service units and one million retailers in the country. They constitute about 99 per cent of the enterprises.
The large scale sector provide only one per cent of the employment in the country. If that is the reality SMEs should be supported strongly and given all the financial assistance essential.
A recent study, which found mention in the Economic Survey as well, showed it cost 86 times more capital to employ a person in the large scale industry than in the small sector. But this sector has been bound by an excess of red tape and bureaucratic oversight for too long now.
Unless a real revolution takes place in the country the hands of the finance minister are tied. And as long as we depend on large-scale aid from the World Bank, Asian Development Bank and other donors we have to listen to the counsels of the IMF, whether we receive IMF's short-term assistance or not.
The fact remains that we are very much an aid-dependent economy. That is a part of our international political linkages. And that is partly due to our relations with India. Once we settle our disputes with India for good, which is not easy all these external tie-ups can change.
Now out of the total budget of Rs. 903 billion, including external and internal borrowing, the largest single item of expenditure is debt-servicing which will cost next year Rs. 266.3 billion, which has come down from Rs. 317 billion this year.
And that is because the external loans have come down and so have also the interest on the balance of the debt. The interest rate on domestic loans too have also come down to save altogether over Rs. 51 billion next year.
External debt, now standing at 34.5 billion refuses to come down as much as the headlines indicate since we keep on borrowing more and more. We are to get over 1.8 billion dollars from the World Bank and the Asian Development Bank next year.
The US has announced it would reduce Pakistan's bilateral debt by 500 million dollars following the one billion dollar reduction made earlier. And the future of the left over 1.5 billion dollars would be negotiated later.
And that goes along with the three billion dollars spread over five years as military and economic aid. The second largest item of expenditure is the public sector development outlay of Rs. 202 billion in place of Rs. 160 billion this year, which is to create a million jobs.
There are doubts whether the government would be able to spend that much next year; but the government says it can, and will, through constant review and removal of impediments.
The third largest item of expenditure is Rs. 193.5 billion for defence instead of Rs. 180.5 billion this year against the targeted Rs. 160 billion to meet the needs of the navy and air force.
After the reduction of 50,000 soldiers from the army and following the improvement in relations with India it was hoped the defence expenditure could come down. Instead, it has gone up to equip the air force and the navy.
The fourth item is the increase in salaries and pensions of government employees which will claim Rs. 15 billion, while the provincial budgets too will rise according to the size of their staff.
The four items together consume Rs. 677 billion out of the total expenditure of Rs. 903 billion, and so there is little to be spent on welfare of the people apart from what comes out of the annual development plan outlay.
In these challenging times the Pakistanis are coming to the help of their country in a significant manner. Their home remittances in the first 11 months of the year is 3.516 billion dollars which means they are keeping up the increase in remittances of recent years which helps to build the foreign exchanges reserve which may soon exceed 13 billion dollars.
The government and the State Bank are simultaneously taking steps to check money-laundering. The central bank wants the banks to know their staff before recruiting them as well as their clients or the source of their funds.
It is doing that as a part of a worldwide campaign to prevent terrorist financing and thriving by big time crimes, including large scale drug trade. It is a tough task in Pakistan because of the large number of persons involved. So we have to see how well the banks act.
Even after rising additional tax revenues of Rs. 70 billion next year and bank borrowing or printing of notes for Rs. 45.5 billion next year, there will be a budgetary deficit of four per cent, which will be covered by external and internal borrowing.
Hence it becomes imperative for the government to use the money well and not squander it and then tax the people to return the loans or wait for another international crisis for us to ask the donors to write a large part of those loans off.
Aid use has to become far more efficient and productive than it has been over the years. And that may eventually depend on how well our own funds are used and produce results. All that depends on our capacity to use large funds productively and economically.
There has been a great deal of talk about capacity-building, prompted by the World Bank but when will all that talk result in real efficiency and economy on the ground?
The need of the times is that while we have to use our own money well, we have to use the borrowed money even more efficiently and make the projects on which the money is spent pay the interest cost of the loans.
Instead we have been taxing the people all the time to repay the loans or pay the interest. And we have done that for such a long time we take that for granted as the normal course as the people or the parliament do not protest.
And now when a bill is to be introduced in the parliament to set the ceiling on public borrowing and specify that limit year after year, will we spend the borrowed money wisely? That depends on the extent of the parliamentary check and the care with which the Public Accounts Committee scrutinises such spending of borrowed money, particularly the externally borrowed.
The external debt is now 35.85 billion dollars, which is over three years export earnings, and should be reduced. Pakistan's domestic debt is Rs. 2,025 billion and interest payment on that is Rs. 191.5 billion which too should be reduced.
But since the interest rates are coming down the government is not too anxious to reduce the domestic debt. In addition the government is borrowing heavily through the Pakistan Investment Bonds to buy foreign exchange to build up the foreign exchange reserves at a time the dollar is relatively cheap.
The safe limit of a country's debt is 60 per cent of its GDP but Pakistan's debt had gone far beyond 100 per cent of the GDP but has since then come down, particularly the external debt and interest payments there on.