Afghanistan: no end in sight

A COUPLE of days ago, the Nato defence ministers met in Noordwijk to hear impassioned pleas from the Americans and the British for a greater commitment of troops by their Nato allies in Afghanistan.

Even more importantly, Nato allies were urged to consider a relaxation of national caveats which keep the troops of such important members as Germany, Italy and France from the combat zones in the south and southeast of the country.

As expected the response was negative. The only thing the Americans and their ‘fighting’ allies — Britain, Canada, Australia and the Netherlands — were able to get was a promise by Germany and others to increase the amount of money and men needed to train the Afghan security forces.

General Rick Hillier, the Canadian chief of defence staff, after a recent three-day visit to Afghanistan, estimates that it would take 10 years to train and equip the Afghan armed forces and police to take on the Taliban threat and provide security.Seventy-one soldiers and one Canadian diplomat have died in Afghanistan. It is estimated that Canada would have spent about $6.3bn on maintaining its military contingent with an additional $1.2bn being spent on reconstruction work by the Canadian aid agency. There are serious questions being raised in the Canadian parliament by the opposition about the advisability of honouring even the commitment to keep Canadian combat troops in Afghanistan up to 2009, leave alone extending the period to the 10 years that General Hillier feels are required for the Afghan army’s build-up.

Prime Minister Harper has, in an adroit political move, appointed a panel led by a prominent opposition leader to recommend what the Canadians should do once the present commitment ends in 2009 while asking the parliament to extend the term of the Canadian contingent up to 2011 by which time he argues the Afghan security forces would be able to take on the task of maintaining peace in Afghanistan.

Chances are that despite the increasingly vociferous opposition Harper will get the desired extension but will be asked to allow other countries to take over the combat role while the Canadians focus on reconstruction.

The maintenance of the Dutch contingent along with its aircraft and helicopters will have cost, by the end of August 2008 when the current two-year deployment ends, about $1.6bn — a not inconsiderable sum for the Netherlands. This will probably weigh heavily with the decision-makers when the question of extending the term comes up for discussion next month. There will also be questions about the ‘rules of engagement’ that the Dutch follow.

According to some American analysts, the Dutch do not seek out the Taliban in the very troubled province of Uruzgan, and instead, try and carry out reconstruction work in the areas that are relatively peaceful. On the other hand, the Australians refused to participate in a Dutch-led combat operation in June this year because they believed that the operation would result in civilian casualties. The operation did cause some 52 civilian casualties and evoked a strong condemnation by President Karzai.

The Dutch may well renew the mandate for another year or so but they too can be expected to suggest that their contingent should focus on reconstruction while leaving the fighting to others.The absence of an adequate number of boots on the ground has been a constant refrain from the Americans. Given their involvement in Iraq, they are, however, not in a position to increase in any significant way their own deployment in Afghanistan. They will, therefore, have to rely more and more on airpower to compensate, and in doing so will continue to cause the sort of collateral damage that is making impossible the task of winning the hearts and minds of the people particularly in the Pashtun belt.

It is becoming evident that the Taliban in Afghanistan do not now have the same monolithic structure that they did in 2001. Rather, there are fighters under their flag who are protecting their tribal rights or even more often are tier-two fighters who are being paid from the coffers of the Taliban to attack coalition and Afghan forces.

It is safe to suggest that given the prevailing level of unemployment and the absence of development work caused in part by the security situation the number of tier-two fighters will keep increasing and the Taliban will be able to generate the required funds both from their share of the opium trade and from their foreign benefactors.

There is little chance that the Karzai administration will be able to correct this situation. The coalition forces can claim with justice that the much heralded Taliban offensive did not materialise this year. But insecurity prevails. There have been some 130 suicide attacks in Afghanistan in 2007. There has been Taliban activity in the hitherto peaceful provinces in the west and north. Northern warlords in these areas are beginning to rebuild their militias on the ground that the ‘Taliban are coming’.

This may, of course, be no more than a pretext for the warlords of the area to recreate the force needed to maintain their fiefdoms. The net effect, however, may well be the accentuation of the north-south divide in Afghanistan.

The picture is grim and there is no discernible light at the end of this tunnel. What should Pakistan do about Afghanistan while facing its own troubles in the tribal areas and now in Swat where the ‘benign or deliberate neglect’ has made Swat into what appears, deceptively, to be an extremist stronghold?

For the moment, it is enough to say that along with clearing out the ‘Maulvi Radio” nonsense in Swat we must recognise that our open borders with Afghanistan and the continued presence of Afghan refugees in uncontrolled and uncontrollable refugee camps will only accentuate such internal problems for us and add to the problems of Afghanistan.

The rounding up of 257 foreign and Afghan nationals from the Chaman area must also be followed up by further such efforts in the ‘Afghan quarter’ in Quetta which may or may not be the planning headquarters of the Taliban leadership but which certainly constitutes the rest, recreation and recruiting centres for the Taliban.

Much of the Pashtun belt in Balochistan, along with the tribal areas, is just as vulnerable to the siren call and cash of the Taliban as the south and east of Afghanistan. Despite the security situation our efforts to create jobs in the tribal areas must be intensified. While symbolically important the building of a Fata house in Islamabad should have lower priority than well-publicised development projects in Fata.

The postponement of the closure of the refugee camps must be reconsidered. We cannot continue to be concerned about the difficulties this would cause the refugees — and these admittedly will be considerable — when our own security is at stake. The biometric system to monitor the human and goods traffic across our border with Afghanistan must be strictly enforced.

Where are the promises?

WE are told that elections are around the corner. Both the PPP and the PML-Q appear to have started working the vote. Pervaiz Elahi, for one, appears to be trooping up and down Punjab pointing out the amazing work he has done (and of course cursing the Bhuttos). But where are the promises? Where are the party programmes? Where are the discussions in our independent media?

For me, the electoral question is simple: how will I as an average Pakistani be better off once elections are held? How will my life have improved in 2009 (year two), 2010 (year three) and 2012 (year five)? I know that the PPP says it wants to empower the people while the PML-Q wants to manage the economy and produce results. However, what do these clichés mean in practice?

At the moment, according to the last federal budget, Pakistan’s total revenues were Rs1,475bn. The government of the time, which could arguably be called a PML-Q government, had promised to spend Rs1,874bn during the year. Can the government let me know how this was used to improve my life?

I have here some specific questions. In his last budget speech the minister of state for finance said: ‘It goes to the credit of the government, which is the first to have completed its five-year term, that salaries of government servants have been raised substantially four times, which is unprecedented. Government is fully conscious of the welfare of its employees. Salaries of government employees are being increased by 15 per cent in the present budget.’

As an end-user of the government’s services I would like to know how has this increase in wages for civil servants translated into better services for my fellow Pakistanis and me.

My business does not benefit from a better and more responsive or friendly taxation system. I still have to pay my way through customs. When I have needed the foreign service abroad it has been abysmal and public trust in the senior police leadership which is federally recruited is at an all-time low.

So where are all these civil servants who should be helping me? Will the PPP give me a real promise that only those civil servants will be retained who are service-oriented? Also, some indication of what will happen to the others will be useful. For example, will the ones who do not pass muster be sent to fight the Taliban?

Could the PPP finance head honcho, whoever he/she is, speak up regarding how s/he intends to improve government services and how will s/he resource the party’s plans?

The minister of state for finance then went on with his commitments: ‘Our government realised the need of low-income people. Low-cost housing schemes would be started in collaboration with provincial and district governments. Loan from HBFC will be available. Under this scheme an estimated number of 250,000 units would be constructed in the next five years.’

What this means is that around 50,000 houses a year were promised to Pakistan, which is a country of around 120 million low or no income people. Obviously, we want to know who will get these houses. What will be the criteria of these low-income people?

Would the independent media please stand up and let me know where these houses are? Could it please confirm that these houses have not all been given to low-income cousins, brothers or political favourites, and lest I forget, favoured journalists. How did such a hare-brained scheme come to be part of the budget? How is the HBFC managing this and how has this worked?

Can the PPP tell me anything better; particularly since they have ‘makaan’ (provision of housing) as a key item on their manifesto? I would like to know the PPP’s housing policy. I would like to know the numbers they promise and the manner in which they intend to resource their plan.

Excuse his biblical tone but then our worthy minister of state for finance said:

‘It is our religious obligation to pay a labourer his wage before his sweat dries. It was the government of Muslim League and its allied parties which fixed a minimum wage of Rs4,000 per month in last year’s budget. Workers are the backbone of a society. Not taking good care of their needs would be tantamount to weakening the economy. You ask workers as to whether they did not benefit from the increase in their minimum wage.

‘Those who are not ready to acknowledge this fact are people who did not themselves work in their life, neither do they know what hard work really is. I would like to give good news to my working class brothers that the minimum wage of unskilled workers is being increased from Rs4,000 per month to Rs4,600 per month.’

Coming from someone with a martial or rather ‘field marshal’ background, I would be interested in finding out what the junior finance minister knows about hard work But that is neither here nor there. The question is: did this announcement have a real impact on our work force?

I would love to invite comments from my readers on this tremendous largesse to our workers. I would though like to know how this budget provides for a rented house, transport (to and from work) and food for a worker and his family.

Please remember that a 20 kg bag of atta at the government rate is around Rs300. I will not mention the price of any food comprising proteins. I would like the employers’ view on whether they are able to fund this wage and if they can better it.

Given the complete decimation of the formal sector I would also like to know how many workers in the country are actually within this protection. Could the PPP please stand up and let me know its plans and the resources it intends to tap?

I would today like to limit my questions to housing policy, government policy and labour welfare. For me, what is more important than this piece (which few that matter will read or answer) is that the media starts asking the right questions.

Who is corrupt, a threat to national security, a collaborator of the military or an anti democratic force are conundrums with no answers. The questions that should be key to an election and which should determine our future have to be clearer. The media must investigate, educate and force our future leaders to answer questions relating to ordinary people’s lives and then give fair analyses.

And finally, perhaps we might start using fewer adjectives and blatant sycophancy. I am not a great judge of budget speeches but in most societies this particularly memorable passage from the minister’s budget speech may have left some speakers just a tad embarrassed: ‘It was not an easy task, neither did we have any magic wand. It was because of God’s blessing, guidance of the president, farsightedness of the prime minister, untiring efforts of the government machinery, and the prayers of the nation that we emerged successful.’

Let us find out in the election how the media and the people share the minister’s view of the success of his government. Please watch this space for further questions and analyses of any answers that I receive.

The writer is a corporate lawyer and political analyst.

lawgroup.q3@googlemail.com

A matter of aesthetics

A PENCHANT for culture is visible at all levels of society, whether the individuals are rich or poor, enlightened or illiterate. Although we seem to believe that cultural activities are only the prerogative of the rich, the facts are different.

The rich and the highlymay satisfy their craving through sophisticated performances of music and painting and dance, while the poor may not be able to go any better than watching the bandar ka tamasha, the itinerant show of the trained monkey.

One popular manifestation of culture is through a taste for architecture. Once, many years ago, when I was in Punjab Information, I had suggested to the provincial government that, as a matter of principle, every state structure in future should have a cultural feature in it.

I felt sad to learn later, after I had left the post, that the Chief Secretary had not forwarded my proposal to the Governor at all. The Governor was General Ghulam Jilani Khan, who gave Lahore all its new gardens and the Alhamra Arts Complex with its three performing halls and an art gallery, and he would have loved the idea.

Recently, I read somewhere that in the United States federal building laws decree that half per cent of the cost of every building is to be set apart for installing an art feature in it, either in the form of a mural or a sculpture or some other cultural work appropriate to the building’s purpose.

Why is this done? Clearly the intention is to demonstrate in practical terms that the American nation honours its great artists, that it is alive to the need for beautiful and inspiring art in the people’s lives, and that it is not crassly materialistic in its outlook towards architecture.

Talking with some friends the other day about Mangla Dam, I asked them if they had seen Sadequain’s great mural, that takes up a full huge wall of the power house. They didn’t even know about it because the power house is not open to visitors. It was news for them that the mural had been commissioned by the World Bank, since Mangla Dam was part of the Indus Basin Treaty between India and Pakistan, sponsored by the Bank.

Whenever I pass the National Assembly building in Islamabad I wish someone say the Speaker would do something about the long horizontal space on its facade whose emptiness calls out for an ornament of some kind. Maybe some day (new elections are around the corner) we’11 get a Speaker with a special liking for artistic works and he’ll think of it himself.

Such things are almost always due to one man’s initiative. If you find an artistic piece forming an integral part of a public building in Pakistan, you will discover that one person in control somewhere had been responsible for it. Otherwise, with us, there is no practice or policy to adorn public structures with anything beautiful of any kind. Many bureaucrats would take it as a waste of money.

Take an example. In the Pakistan Institute of Medical Sciences (PIMS) in Islamabad, you will see two large paintings by Ghulam Rasul, the famous artist. These were contributed by him in appreciation of the treatment and care he received there when he was ill. Ghulam Rasul didn’t have to do that because he was a government servant and was entitled to be looked after in PIMS, but it was nice of him to make the gesture.

My motive in making that proposal to the Punjab government was two-fold. One was to show that the government was not totally oblivious to fine arts and was conscious of the need to educate the people culturally. The other was to patronise wellpainters and sculptors and calligraphers and help them financially by offering work to them.

This was, in fact, no gesture of favour to them because payment for their artistic contributions was to be made from public funds. The third point I kept to myself because it couldn’t be articulated.

It was that the PWD and government servants engaged in projects were notorious for embezzling almost oneof the cost of every building, so why shouldn’t some of it go to a legitimate and deserving sector the sector of art and culture? Alas, a philistine bureaucrat had to block my proposal.

Beautiful public buildings adorned with works of art evoke admiration and inculcate in the people a sense of pride as well as an understanding of artistic things.

In Third World countries (as Pakistan is) where aesthetic abilities of the people are not fully developed, it becomes the duty of the state to promote culture where it does not exist, or where none is locally available.

This was done on a grand scale by the socialist countries in particular on the principle that it is one of the functions of socialism to fulfil all the needs of the people, whether material or intellectual. It may sound paradoxical to us who suffer from the fallacy that socialism is against Islam, but this is what the USSR did, not only in the Russian part of the Soviet empire but also in the republics of Central Asia where the indigenous culture, essentially Islamic in character, was preserved and promoted to an extent that Muslim visitors from the outside world were simply amazed. Religion was put down but culture was encouraged.

Attractive buildings can be as much an embodiment of art as paintings and sculptures. More than half of the cultural heritage of various nations consists of structures in the form of buildings.

For instance, apart from paintings, illuminated manuscripts, examples of calligraphy, classical music, the Kathak dance, etc., our own cultural heritage consists of beautiful buildings and gardens left by the Mughals? There are many lessons in this for our architects and administrators.

State power vs street power

IN modern times, people’s power emerged most radically and effectively after the French Revolution in 1789 when a Parisian crowd demolished the Bastille in defiance of state oppression and ultimately ended the rule of the Bourbon dynasty by executing the king and the queen. The events stunned other European countries that became apprehensive of crowds and fearful of their revolutionary fervour.

This was also the time when England was facing unrest and discontent because of industrialisation. There were a number of riots, strikes and demonstrations by workers and radical groups to force the government to accept their demands. In 1819, occurred the massacre of radical groups in Manchester which was called the ‘Peterloo massacre’ by the people in a reference to the battle of Waterloo.

The British government realised that repeated strikes and marches by the people could not be controlled by the army which was trained to fight in open fields against the enemy but not crowds of people in cities. To control mobs was quite a different matter. Therefore, in 1829, the Metropolitan Police Act set up a new type of force to combat street power on behalf of the state and to curb crimes in the city.

Another important change which took place in Europe was the revolution of 1848 which broke out in Vienna, Paris and Berlin. The army found it difficult to chase the crowd in the narrow streets of these cities. When the revolution was crushed, all these cities were rebuilt to control crowds in case of riots and demonstrations.

In the new city planning, roads were straighter and wider in order to facilitate the movement of troops against demonstrators.

During the colonial period, the British brought both these techniques to India. New concepts of making towns ‘police-friendly’ went into practice in Lucknow, Lahore and Delhi. The army was used to crush rebellions, and in extreme situations it was called to help the civil authorities. The police force was, however, used to check crowds and demonstrators. As the freedom movement gained momentum, strikes and popular marches became common throughout India.

In these circumstances, the role of the police became vital to keep law and order, to protect government property, and to defend the authority of the colonial state. To disperse crowds, the police resorted to all types of brutal methods and the ‘lathi charge’ became a household term.

Later, the police were given new weapons including teargas shells to subdue the crowds. The result was that there emerged strong and deep hostility and animosity between the people and the police. Both had adversarial images of each other. To the people, the police were a brutal and inhuman force which served the cause of the ruling classes; while to the police the people were trouble-makers and, therefore, had to be dealt with an iron hand.

In Pakistan, the state continued the colonial legacy by using the police to smash and crush any demonstration and agitation against the government. The police continued as a brutal institution of the state which was used against the people. Whenever it got a chance it lathi-charged mobs mercilessly, threw teargas shells on the crowds indiscriminately and in some cases killed by firing on the crowd.

The conflict between the police and the people becomes pronounced in political systems that are dictatorial, non-democratic and intolerant of any popular dissent. Every government is afraid of a people’s movement. Z.A. Bhutto used the mob against Ayub Khan for the purpose of attaining political power. As soon as he was in power he did not fail to remind the people that ‘the state was stronger than the street’.

For the last 60 years, we have observed this conflict between state power and street power in Pakistan. In big cities like Karachi, Lahore, Hyderabad, Rawalpindi and Multan, and smaller cities where there are narrow streets and lanes, the police have failed to combat the demonstrators. For example, in Karachi, Liaquatabad is famous for its narrow lanes where police cannot chase the mob easily.

It is easy for the police to attack and disperse the crowd in open streets such as The Mall in Lahore or M.A. Jinnah Road in Karachi. Islamabad is different in that way. It has no sector with narrow streets or labyrinthine lanes. It is open and all its streets are straight and wide. Therefore, any demonstration can easily be dispersed by the police. Its planning is tailor-made for law-enforcement authorities.

Generally, the rulers underestimate street power and attempt to crush it by using force. History shows that street power has radically changed systems and overthrown unpopular governments. This happened in Georgia, Ukraine and, after the fall of Russia, most of the East European countries. However, dictators do not learn any lesson from history and, believing in state power, strive to sustain their authority till the very end.

Sadly, in Pakistan, street power and the people’s challenge to unpopular governments have always produced results not in their favour but to the advantage of discredited politicians who are always looking for opportunities to grab power in the name of the people. It was evident in the mass protest against Ayub Khan, Z.A. Bhutto, Ziaul Haq, and the present military government.

In the end, as a result of their protest, the same opportunist and power-hungry leaders, who have already betrayed the trust of the people, emerge again as potential candidates to rule over the country.

Unlike dictatorships, democratic societies tolerate street power and allow people to express their views openly. It is not necessary that the people’s voice should change the policies of the government, but it helps the people to present their opinion and to remind the ruling majority of their presence at the time of elections.