THE Sindh government has constituted a committee to inquire into the Karachi police’s failure to control the acts of arson (and riots) after last month’s bomb blast in Madinatul Ilm in Karachi. The setting up of the committee suggests as if this was the first time that mobs went on the rampage and killed people and torched property, especially cars and buses.

To refresh the reader’s memory, last year, too, in May, Karachi was virtually a bedlam when two incidents of terrorism were followed by widespread acts of arson. On May 7, there was a bomb blast in the Hyderi mosque, killing 22 people. Angry mobs then burnt down a government office near Numaish. On May 30, Maulana Shamzai was assassinated. His followers went berserk and burnt down 20 vehicles, two banks and a gas station.

The Sindh government, for some inexplicable reason, did not set up a committee then to inquire why the police had failed to prevent burning. Such inquiries are useless, because the policemen have neither the will nor the training to prevent or heal a sick nation. Their job is to maintain law and order and move quickly to where the trouble is. In Pakistan, however, reaction to a bomb blast or political assassination is so routine that it is not possible even for the best of the agencies to act well in time to prevent it. Besides, often fire engines cannot extinguish a fire because mobs block their way.

Going by the frequency and extent of such incidents, arson seems to have become something of a sport in Pakistan. You torch public and private property in a mood of frenzy, even though the things burnt down, or those who owned them, had nothing to do with the cause of provocation.

As irony would have it, the news item about the formation of the committee appeared next to a picture showing a burning minibus following another shoot-out between the MQM and the Sunni Tehrik. However, one can be reasonably sure that neither the MQM nor the ST owned the bus that was reduced to ashes.

The truth is that the cause of arson is to be found in the collective psyche which all political parties have transmitted to the people of Pakistan. Being a product of low political culture and pursuing myopic policies themselves, which aim at short-term gains and propaganda victories, they have contributed to the creation of a mob psychology that considers nothing sacred and burns even ambulances.

Stupefying as it may sound, the religious elements are no less guilty of adopting arson as a mode of political action. One may ask here why religious groups and parties should be singled out when virtually all political parties and student organizations are involved in acts of arson. There are basically two reasons:

One, during the anti-communist days, let us recall, the religious parties defended private property very zealously in a spirit of jihad and considered it sacred and inviolable. For that reason, there was no dearth of arguments that they culled from the compendium of Islamic jurisprudence to defend landlordism and to issue edicts against a state take-over of industry. But today, this seems to be a forgotten chapter that has been closed with the end of the cold war. Now the religious parties have no qualms of conscience about damaging or destroying private property.

During the PNA movement in 1977, burning public and private property, including ambulances — along with violent rallies and “wheel-jam” strikes — was a daily occurrence. Again, in October 2001, following the American attack on Afghanistan, the religious parties organized demonstrations and strikes that saw lawlessness and acts of arson in Karachi and parts of the NWFP and Balochistan on a large scale. One security guard of a Karachi flour mill was beaten to death for no fault other than that of being on duty.

Nothing better illustrates the apathy and indifference of the religious groups and parties to arson than what happened when Maulana Yusuf Ludhianvi — by any standards a great scholar — was assassinated in May 2000. (Is the month of May jinxed for Karachi?) The institution to which he belonged gave a strike call, but the evening before the fateful day saw arson on an unprecedented scale. Mobs roamed the streets, vandalizing and burning at will. Besides torching innumerable vehicles, they burnt a bank, a cinema and a newspaper office, where smoke suffocated two people to death.

Five years after the murder, it is not clear who killed Maulana Ludhianvi, but the madrassah that organized the strike and the students who went on a burning spree have not made it known till this day what relationship there was between the scholar’s murder and the violent form of the protest that it had sparked. The same drama was witnessed a few years later when Maulana Saleem Qadri, head of the Sunni Tehrik, was murdered.

When it comes to strike-eve burning, the MQM is unbeatable. But then the MQM is not a religious party and is utterly indifferent to the morality or the consequences of its actions. For it, the ends justify the means. But the fact that religious elements should tolerate or practise arson as a form of protest is indeed a sad commentary on the sense of responsibility of those who run them. This is our second point: must the religious groups, too, reduce themselves to the level of those “secular” parties that tend to consider arson no crime? A crime is a crime, no matter who commits it. Secular or not, a party or group resorting to arson is as much guilty of this reprehensible crime as a religious one. But the religiously-motivated institutions’ responsibility is the greater because they claim to stand on a high moral pedestal and sermonize us about such cardinal virtues as having a religion column in passports, the absolute necessity for a woman to wear her dupatta properly, and the dire threat to the nation’s morality from a mixed marathon lasting seven minutes. What is missing is a fatwa against violence and arson.

Like others, the religious groups too deny that they are in any way involved in arson or violence. Their standard argument is that those who burn or kill are “outsiders” or “anti-social elements” who try to profit from such happenings.

In the first place, it is doubtful if “anti-social elements” would want to burn a vehicle; they would rather steal a car and sell it than burn it. Invariably, as facts show, it is the political activists who kill and burn. Besides, even if the burning is done by “anti-social elements”, it is the duty of the party giving a strike call to ensure that the occasion does not degenerate into violence and disorder. It cannot escape its responsibility simply by blaming outsiders.

The reason why we consider the religious leaders’ responsibility greater because, notwithstanding their politics and a highly skewed sense of priorities, they do have a certain hold over the masses. Even those who do not vote for them listen to them. Wouldn’t the religious parties be really doing a service to Pakistan if they came out collectively in denunciation of arson?

They told us during the anti-communist days that private property was sacred and inviolable. Why not pick up the theme again so as to try to cure this nation of this sickness that we unfortunately have come to consider a sport like one-day cricket?

PRIME MINISTER Shaukat Aziz says Pakistan is making fast progress and has achieved the target of economic self-sufficiency. The country is no longer in need of foreign co-operation in terms of foreign aid, he has stressed.

While making this assertion, he possibly excludes borrowing from the World Bank and the Asian Development Bank at concessional rates, even at the nominal interest rate of 0.7 per cent from the category of financial aid, and regards them as commercial transactions. The World Bank’s concessional aid arm, the IDA, may not agree to that approach in case of its assistance in a world of fast rising interest rates.

The prime minister evidently regards only grants from donor states or institutions as financial aid, and not the billion dollars each it is to receive from the World Bank and Asian Development Bank in the next three years. In fact the assistance from both the banks may be larger if the large new projects under discussion are finalised and financial commitments entered into soon.

Anyway grants from donor states is a vanishing commodity for most of the old aid seekers have become better for that or can’t do better with more of it. Anyhow the grants from the West are now committed to the least developed countries of Africa with their myriad problems, with aid as the principal one. And old aid-seekers like Pakistan with its 8.4 per cent economic growth can’t cut into the grants being committed to Africa.

President Musharraf, too, keeps on asserting that the country has come to the take-off stage. If it has, it has come to the last stage of the developmental process. It does not need external aid then. Instead, the foreign investors and domestic entrepreneurs can take care of the process and accelerate that. Our leaders make such a claims in spite of the severe constraints caused by the world oil crisis with oil selling at 56 dollars a barrel.

We have also an external trade deficit of six billion dollars this year and current account deficit of over three billion dollars. Our overseas workers have stood by us by sending home remittances of four billion dollars through the banks.

To many Pakistanis such ebullient statements of the rulers stand in contrast to the decision of the government to avail itself of the advice of the IMF. Many Pakistanis had rejoiced over the snapping of the umbilical cord with the IMF following the end of the Poverty Reduction and Growth Facility of 1.4 billion dollars spread over three years. As the programme with a little money and a lot of mandatory advice was coming to an end, the government officials, particularly Shaukat Aziz, announced triumphantly that Pakistan would not go for another IMF programme with all its restrictions.

Now the IMF would not monitor the working of Pakistan’s economy with the severity with which it had done earlier, producing howls of protest. And there are no tranches of dollars to give or hold back as ransom. But it will continue to extend economic guidance, with no binding obligation on the part of Pakistan to accept it or not.

The fact is that a certificate of good economic health and good management is essential from the IMF to receive assistance from other donors, like the World Bank and the Asian Development Bank. The US and other donor countries expect such a certificate from Pakistan when it seeks their assistance.

Such a benign approach of the IMF towards Pakistan is essential when it goes to the international capital market to raise large loans like the 500 million Eurobond loan or the 500 million dollar Sukukh bonds it issued later.

Whether we welcome the IMF as a lender or not, we do need its certificate of good financial health and competent management. So it is better to be on the right side of the IMF as long as we seek external aid of any kind. And this time the World Bank is reported to have advised Pakistan to lend its ears to the IMF advice, more so when our external economic relations are expanding and we are seeking more of foreign investment and pursuing a 24 billion dollar export target in five years.

For all the criticism which the IMF faces in the developing countries and elsewhere, what does the IMF want from other countries under its guidance? It wants low non-productive spending, efficient and economic administration and a small budget deficit around three per cent of the GDP. It wants low inflation and high investment particularly foreign investment with modern technology. It wants low defence spending close to 2 per cent of the GDP, anyway below 3 per cent.

It prefers a small and efficient bureaucracy, and more money to be spent in developing countries on education, public health and a clean environment. It wants a high tax-GDP ratio and that a far larger number of people pay taxes. It wants more of a documented economy and a thriving corporate sector.

None of them is objectionable. But the complaint against the IMF is that too often it wants to achieve too many objectives together too quick and it can be impatient in its quest for achieving targets. In its anxiety to develop the economy fast or put the macro-economic structure on a sound foundation it does not bother about the hardships of the people. Its approach is “pain today means gain tomorrow.” But the fact is that people have endured a great deal of pain over a long period but the gain is far to come. Overall, its policy, one can say, results in making the rich richer and the poor poorer. And it does not mind creating a new rich class which eventually monopolizes the political power as well.

The budget debate concluded in the National Assembly with the opposition walking out in protest against heavy indirect taxation which will rise to 69.1 per cent next year against 68.2 per cent this year. The indirect taxes were all passed on to the poor, the opposition argued. In fact, the direct taxation meant for businessmen and industrialists is also passed on to the poor in the form of enhanced prices.

Naveed Qamar of the PPP said the wealth concentrated in a few hands did not trickle down what the western experts claim. Many say that instead of the 22 families of the 1970s we now have 220 families. And many of them, as a result of inter-marriages, reinforced their wealth and political clout.

Many of the opposition members as well as the people in general are baffled by the manner in which import duty relief has been given on import of luxury cars while no relief is given to the small cars assembled in Pakistan which the low income groups find forbiddingly expensive. But then such iniquitous relief has not been given for the first time; it has been given over a long period of time, although the country does not need super luxury cars, only the very rich want them and get them at concessional rates from time to time.

The members of the National Assembly were surprised to note that the defence expenditure of Rs223.5 billion is again a one-line item in the budget that is not subject to a debate. The government says the defence spending is scrutinised by the Auditor General of Pakistan. The fact is there is no audit to make sure the expenditure on each item is truly warranted. The scrutiny is only after the money had been spent, or even over-spent. This year the revised defence expenditure is Rs216 billion, while the budget approved earlier was only Rs194 billion — an excess expenditure of Rs22 billion without prior sanction.

Of course, the Auditor General is expected to audit all official expenditure; but what about the standing committee of the Assembly on defence, which can at least be taken into confidence before the budget is passed or presented to the Assembly? And what about the role of the Public Accounts Committee in this regard which can have a closed session to scrutinize the defence expenditure incurred?

And what about wasted expenditures like the Rs4.8 billion on litigation in respect of the Jinnah Terminal admitted by the government? Evidently the wrong lawyers were hired, and the vast public expenditure wasted.

Procurement of goods and services from outside has always been a controversial issue in Pakistan. To remedy that the Public Procurement Regulatory Authority was set up recently. This watchdog, working under the ministry of finance, in its first report has pointed out that most of the ministries and divisions were not only violating the procurement rules but also lacking transparency in its dealings. This is a serious lapse that can result in large losses to the government and vast waste of its resources.

Dr Hafeez Shaikh, minister for privatization, has suggested creation of a separate poverty reduction fund to utilise the 10 per cent sale proceeds of privatization to be earmarked for fighting poverty. Such a fund can make the privatization popular if it is large enough and well spent. For example 10 per cent of the Rs155 billion sale proceeds of 26 per cent of the PTCL is as large as 15.5 billion. More such projects in the energy sector, like the PSO, PPL, etc., are to be privatized soon, and the amount available for poverty reduction can be large.

But the prime minister talks of using the sale proceeds of the privatization for reducing the budget deficit which next year may be Rs285 billion. According to the policy upheld so far 90 per cent of the sale proceeds of privatization is to be used for debt relief, beginning with the most costly debt as in the case of some of the Asian Development Bank loans. If the assets of the country are being disposed of, the sale proceeds should go towards reducing the debt liabilities.

If the foreign debt has come down to 47 per cent of the GDP that does not mean we should not be anxious to reduce it further when servicing it still costs Rs46 billion and total debt servicing cost is Rs301 billion next year. Relief from domestic debt servicing which will cost Rs190 billion is still very essential for us. Low interest rates should not make us indifferent to the heavy domestic debt.

Look at the level of profligacy in Sindh where the provincial assembly approved a supplementary budget of Rs26 billion in 25 minutes which is a proof of extravagant spending by the government, the chief minister and the ministers in particular. That was the money which went down the drain and was of a government which is broke most of the time and is ever ready to borrow more or not pay its many bills.

SINCE the attack on the twin towers, in which many innocent Americans were killed, we have been told that we are engaged in a war against terrorism that threatens our way of life and our liberties.

From that moment on we have been asked to adopt a whole range of measures that pose, what many believe could be, a greater threat to those very liberties and to our way of life. That fact obliges us to examine them, one by one, as a part of the whole, lest we slip into an acceptance of a situation where we can be seen as acquiescing to restrictions on our political and personal freedoms that would have been unthinkable a few years ago.

For example, the forthcoming debate in the House of Commons on identity cards is motivated by a determination on the part of the government to set up a massive database incorporating everything that is known about us all. It integrates our personal particulars with police and security service files that may or may not be accurate, some of which we may never be allowed to know. It is that which makes it all look so like an embryonic police state.

Much of the argument may rotate around the cost incurred or the reliability of biometric testing but, important as they are, the danger lies in the accumulation, storage and use that may be made of this information.

For example, under the arrangements that Britain has with the US that allow us access to their nuclear technology in the Trident programme, America has long insisted that it should have access to all our intelligence material. That means the ID database will be automatically available to it.

Given the number of leaks that occur and the value of the database, the possibility that it could fall into the hands of others for their private commercial purposes cannot be ruled out — with all the opportunities for abuse that would make possible. I have retained all my wartime ID cards with my name, address and photo but none of these posed any threat of the nature set out above.

In addition, we now have the latest anti-terrorist legislation, which permits house arrest and detention without a jury trial — eroding principles going back to the Magna Carta. Security has reached such a pitch that constituents who visit the Commons, now policed by men with machine guns, can only observe those whom they have elected through a transparent bullet proof screen, which only emphasises the widening gap between government and governed.

The prime minister himself moves within a cocoon of highly armed guards, whereas Harold Wilson had a single officer from the Met with a revolver in his pocket. Even when Mrs Thatcher was nearly blown up in Brighton no such stringent measures were proposed.

Next comes the Serious Crime and Disorder Act, under which the home secretary has been authorized to declare an exclusion zone around the Commons. This will silence — and could imprison — Brian Haw, who, far from being guilty of serious crime or disorder, has been preaching peace in Parliament Square and denouncing the war that has killed far more innocent Iraqis than the number of people who died on 9/11.

The Statue of Liberty has been replaced by Guantanamo Bay, and our main ally in the coalition that invaded Iraq now sends detainees to countries that practise torture and feels able to justify it. Soon we are to be told that to defend ourselves the Trident programme is to be updated at a cost that, Michael Portillo argues, could exceed the increase in aid that Britain may pledge at the G8 summit - though how nuclear weapons could deal with Osama bin Laden is far from clear.

At the Labour conference, delegates not only have to go through tight security but are also required to open their briefcases before they enter the conference hall, to make sure they are not carrying socialist literature.

The Commons does not elect our commissioner in Brussels and we are only allowed to vote for a party list in the European elections, leaving the prime minister to select all the Labour MEPs just as he chooses all the members of the House of Lords. This explains what Peter Mandelson meant when he said years ago that “the era of representative government is coming to an end”.

In 1834, when the Commons burned down, crowds stood on the other side of the Thames and cheered because they had lost confidence in it. If that ever happened again, the responsibility would lie with those ministers and MPs who are undermining democracy in the name of security and using fear to push it through. —Daw/Guardian Service

A HIGH-LEVEL plenary meeting, scheduled to be held in New York from September 14 to 16, 2005, will review the progress made on the United Nations Millennium Declaration that was adopted by all member states in 2000 and also consider measures to strengthen the UN in order to make it an effective tool to collectively meet the many challenges and threats facing the world today.

After intensive consultations among the member states, a document has been drafted on behalf of the heads of state and government who will gather in New York for the plenary meeting. The document contains a set of proposals which include all the important elements on which the much needed UN reforms may be based.

This document lays great emphasis on development, security and human rights which are not only the pillars of the UN system but also constitute the indispensable foundation for collective security and the well-being of people all over the world.

It may, however, be pertinent to mention that the challenges facing humanity today have undergone changes since the establishment of the United Nations in 1945 owing to the rapidly changing dynamics of international politics and serious threats to peace and security as a result of political conflicts nuclear proliferation, terrorism, organized transnational crimes, human rights violations, neo-colonial tendencies and the fight for justice and democracy etc.

The UN must, therefore, adapt itself to the needs of the contemporary challenges, otherwise it can neither meet these nor advance the objectives enshrined in its charter. This would, require fundamental changes in the system, although no amount of reform can produce tangible results unless the member states strictly adhere to UN principles. Regrettably, the most powerful members have made the world body subservient to their whims to advance their national interests. They show scant regard for the common good of its members and openly flout the fundamental principle of multilateralism.

Proposals for reforming the UN have been advanced from time to time. The UN General Assembly established several groups within the UN system to address different aspects of reform. However, these groups only sought to streamline the working of the UN secretariat and laid emphasis on enhancing the productivity and efficiency of the staff instead of bringing about fundamental changes in the system itself to enable the organization to play a pivotal and meaningful role in protecting the rights of all the nations and preventing powerful members from imposing their political, economic and military designs on weaker nations.

Regrettably, the attitude of the big powers, particularly that of the five permanent members of the UN Security Council, which is the most powerful organ of the United Nations, has always indicated a certain narrowness of mind which has proved a big hurdle in the way of introducing comprehensive and meaningful reform.

It has also been evident that some among them can go to any extent and resort to the most devious means to block reform if found to be undermining their position and privileges.

For instance, the council opposed any attempt to limit its veto power or develop a more democratic, open and representative body to ensure that its decision-making processes were effective and pluralistic. Apparently, no change is likely in the attitude of the five permanent members of the UN Security Council on the question of veto powers which leads one to believe that present efforts to reform the UN may also prove futile. Against this backdrop the UN millennium summit’s decision to reform the UN is likely to remain a forlorn hope.

The five permanent members of the UN Security Council should, however, realize that the UN must keep pace with the fast changing world otherwise it would lose its credibility and relevance as an international institution established in order to seek cooperation and take a collective approach to world problems. Needless to say, global cooperation and collective action are necessary to meet new and unconventional security threats.

No nation, however powerful can defend itself against these threats without sustained international cooperation among member-states and coordinated collective action on their part.

It is, therefore, necessary that the big powers take a long-term view of the question of UN reform even if they have reservations.

It is important for them to reaffirm their commitment to strengthen the United Nations with a view to enhancing its capacity to address effectively the full range of contemporary challenges. This is the only way forward to ensure a brighter future for the world body, which, despite its many shortcomings and pitfalls, remains the last hope for world peace. The world leaders who will gather in New York this September may make history if they succeed in reaching a consensus-based decision on reforming the United Nations.

The writer is a former ambassador.