FORMER Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif is touching upon subjects which leaders in his country and India intentionally avoid. His suggestion to Pakistan to unilaterally lift restrictions on travel by Indians is bold and timely.

Tensions between the two countries are far less than before and there is a pronounced desire to come closer to one another.

The Muslim League, which Nawaz Sharif heads, is concomitant with fanatic elements. Some have strong anti-India views. For him to ignore their bias is courageous. The hardheaded politician that he is, his ears are plugged to the ground. He is convinced that the average Pakistani wants to befriend India. He tested this sentiment when, some years ago, he swept the polls against the late Benazir Bhutto on the plank that the vote for him was a vote for friendship with India. She had then taken an opposite stand.

Nawaz Sharif has said that Asif Ali Zardari, co-chairman of the ruling Pakistan People’s Party, also supports his proposal. Mr Zardari or any PPP minister should come out with some statement to confirm their support.Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, whose visit to Pakistan is awaited anxiously by Islamabad, said a few weeks ago that he was ready to travel to the other side provided there was something important to sign. The abolition of visa can be worth a visit.

While in the wilderness, Benazir Bhutto had come to the conclusion that India and Pakistan should sink their differences — a realisation that came to her father Zulfikar Ali Bhutto towards the end of his life. He would even say that he was sick of going to the chanceries of the world. Had Benazir been alive she would have taken the initiative to normalise relations with India.

She told me in London during an interview that she wanted a ‘borderless’ subcontinent. She also had Bangladesh, Sri Lanka and Nepal in view. Her wish boiled down to a common South Asia with joint trade, business, services and investment.

The hitch may be from the Indian side. India believes that it is a target for terrorists who are ‘trained’ in Pakistan. New Delhi’s fear was initially focused on the infiltration in Kashmir. But it has now spread to other parts of India, more recently because of disclosures following raids on Simi (Students’ Islamic Movement of India), a banned organisation of Muslim students. Some have reportedly made a clean breast of their ‘design’ to attack key installations and people in high places.

They have also admitted their involvement in several blasts, including the one in the Samjhota Express. New Delhi also claims to have proof that Dawood Ibrahim, an underground don, planned and executed the bomb blasts in Mumbai in 1993. Some recent incidents of violence have also been linked to his men.

Since the ‘hand of Pakistan’ is seen in all these incidents, India is chary of abolishing the visa regime. Its fear is that terrorists will come through the border, although it is naïve to believe that they use normal channels to enter the country. Some terrorist organisations may be operating from across the border, but it is also an established fact that there is an indigenous crop of terrorists in the country.

True, during the interrogation of the Simi men and those of Dawood Ibrahim, an ISI link was alleged. But there is no getting away from the fact that extremists among Muslims in India have emerged after the killings in Gujarat.

Another hindrance in the way of normalisation may be the BJP which once took the credit of leading its prime minister’s bus to Lahore. The party has re-adopted its old anti-Pakistan posture and the ideology of Hindutva. Friendship with Pakistan does not fit into its anti-Muslim approach. The party believes that its anti-Pakistan stance will go down well with the Hindu voter in the Lok Sabha elections due in less than a year.

I see the merit in Nawaz Sharif’s proposal if people-to-people contact is in the thousands. Only then will the cobwebs of misinformation and the age-old hostility go. This cannot be done unless the two countries pledge not to use violence to settle their disputes. It is unfortunate that the Tashkent Declaration did not lead to the abandoning of violence. Lal Bahadur Shastri, did not sign the declaration until General Mohammad Ayub Khan wrote in his own hand the words, ‘without resorting to arms’.

Neither country may sign a ‘no-war’ pact which has its own connotation because of their past history. But they should renounce violence in solving bilateral issues. Using terrorists to destabilise a country is worse. Both countries are at the mercy of terrorists at present. Both would do well if they were to join hands to curb terrorism not only in India and Pakistan but also in the whole of South Asia.

Asif Zardari’s suggestion to keep Kashmir aside for the time being is worth pursuing. We have made no progress in the way we have gone about it in the last 60 years. Had there been at least free trade between the two countries, there would have been economic interdependence, lessening the space for bickering. Trade ultimately develops into economic ties. The feeling of interdependence comes into play. There is give and take. Once this feeling gets hold of the people, they go beyond disputes. At least differences are understood in the spirit of accommodation, not antagonism.

One regrettable thing has been that contacts have generally been at the level of the elite where prejudice has political dimensions. Once business and contact come down to the level of ordinary traders and ordinary people the spirit of togetherness develops. Were this to happen, the picture which some politicians, bureaucrats and journalists have painted of each other’s country would change.

Ultimately, the abolition of visa, however desirable, may be of little use if young minds continue to be polluted. India at least is not guilty of rewriting history. Unfortunately, history in Pakistan begins with the advent of Islam in the subcontinent. What about Moenjodaro, Harappa and Taxila? The subcontinent has a long history. Our separate identities are important. But they cannot be at the expense of the history and traditions which we have shared for hundreds of years. The abolition of visa alone cannot bring about this spirit. n

The writer is a leading journalist based in Delhi.

THESE are new times for Pakistan which are full of hope. The new government has the opportunity to change the future and bring greater sanity to relations between the state and society. Since the elections, everyone has been reminding themselves not to be too rigid in judging the new political dispensation and to give it time. However, one becomes nervous at the sight of old wine in old bottle.

Recently, a Karachi University professor, Dr Riaz, was beaten up and harassed by the Rangers. Reportedly, the paramilitary force also registered an FIR against him. The professor was brutalised by the Rangers posted to control violence on campus. Since then, other incidents have also occurred such as the harassment of former Sindh chief minister Arbab Ghulam Rahim in the Sindh Assembly and Sher Afgan Khan Niazi in Lahore. While the PPP has condemned these incidents, its newest coalition partner the MQM and the opposition PML-Q, have gone into agitation mode. They have been demanding an apology and asking the PPP to take responsibility for the incident. The PPP, of course, denies any involvement. The question then is what is happening, especially when it seemed that things would be improving?

The case of the Karachi University professor is simple. He was a victim of highhandedness by agencies that are still powerful and do not show any signs of change. Of course, this would take some time but a transformation really depends on how the new government manages to play the game. Whether it adopts a defensive or a proactive strategy towards correcting the power balance will make the real difference.

As for the two incidents, there are two explanations for these. First, this was genuinely the revenge of people who had suffered for eight years under the previous regime and who now felt that it was their chance to teach the prominent cronies of the previous regime a lesson. Second, some hidden hands are still at work to keep the new government weak. The weakening of the government benefits the establishment because it could always turn around and say that the new government or politicians in general are irresponsible and cannot run the country.

This will always make a good case for the ‘men on horseback’ to take over in future. The MQM and the PML-Q have not changed their tactics. In fact, the MQM is the wild card in the coalition. The anger of its top leadership can make or break the government. There is also the possibility that some hidden forces could be working to break the partnership between the PML-N and the PPP. The relationship of the Sharif brothers with the president and the party’s agenda to restore the judiciary might be unacceptable to the establishment. Hence, the chaos in Lahore.

A third possibility is that the establishment, which includes political forces in the ruling coalition, might want to drive a wedge between the civil society, the lawyer’s movement and the people. They have all the right tools in their hands to make the divide possible. For instance, the media, which has always been with the establishment, could be used to discredit the lawyers’ movement. Powerful segments of the media have always been part of the establishment and willingly play the game.But such problems will recur and cannot be solved until and unless the new government is willing to challenge the establishment. Space vis-à-vis the establishment will have to be created because it will not be ceded voluntarily. Prime Minister Gilani will have to spell out his priorities and ask the establishment to follow suit. This would include making the agencies transparent and accountable. He should begin by appointing a committee to investigate and restructure the agencies under his control and ask the military to do the same in its own set-up.

Mr Gilani must create a credible socioeconomic development agenda. Although he has promised to provide a job per family, he has to make it workable in a manner that it appears more than just a slogan. Right now, the economy does not have the capacity to fulfill the above objective. The health and education corps is a good idea but this can only provide temporary relief. The amount of pay given to the youngsters might not be sufficient for a family’s sustenance.

A parallel approach would be to revitalise industry and agriculture. Better industrial performance will require greater power generation. Matters have not been made easy by the US which has blocked the Iran-Pakistan-India pipeline and is not willing to relax trade quotas on textile or issue visas to Pakistani businessmen. Given the US travel advisory, it is also difficult for American businessmen to visit Pakistan.

The agricultural sector also requires revolutionary changes to improve productivity. The current state of affairs is not encouraging. The producers are constantly manipulated by the industrialists. For instance, despite a good crop of sugarcane the grower did not benefit because sugar manufacturers, who are all politically well-connected and powerful people, manage policies to twist the arms of the farmers. Farmers are often stranded outside these mills with their sugarcane and are not paid in time. This increases the cost of production and lowers financial benefits.

Then there is the problem of no control over the quality of fertilisers and pesticides which make for the bulk of the cost for a farmer. An old study on agriculture in Punjab showed that over 50 per cent of the farmers have a negative income. This is one reason why a number of big landlords became industrialists with their main income being generated from the industrial units rather than land itself.

Perhaps, a good idea, as a friend recently suggested, would be to bring in foreign investment into agriculture to expand the possibilities of agricultural output. Although Prime Minister Gilani has announced the lining of water courses as part of the 100-day plan, the fact is that Pakistan’s water crisis will increase and might not be able to shoulder the burden of growing cash crops which require high quantities of water. The problem of brackish water around major cities would affect agriculture as well. But an important issue is that we cannot afford to use traditional methods of irrigation.

Of course, none of the above can be achieved without the government becoming proactive and promoting peace amongst the various segments of society. The poor of this country are as important as the top leadership of the political parties. The new government must bring peace all over. This would mean sorting out tensions including those related to the judiciary. Shoving dissent in a corner creates greater frustration which can only strengthen the agencies rather than the political regime. Someone has to break the nefarious cycle and push the country forward. n

The writer is an independent strategic and political analyst.

ayesha.ibd@gmail.com

PRIME Minister Yusuf Raza Gilani made a pledge in his maiden speech in parliament that the Concurrent List would be abolished within a year. That should focus attention on the issue of power-sharing in the federation.

There is an urgent need for both the Houses to debate what is fundamentally wrong with Pakistan’s constitutional structure that denies fair and equitable distribution of taxation powers between the federation and the federating units.

In all the major federations, such as the US, Canada and India, the federating units have the exclusive right to levy indirect taxes on goods and services generated within their geographical boundaries. In Pakistan, the federal government has blatantly denied this right to all the four provinces. It is a vital constitutional and political issue that deserves due attention to ensure the judicious distribution of taxation rights between the centre and the federating units.

Federal highhandedness in tax matters (by using both the Federal and Concurrent Lists) has destroyed the financial and economic rights of provinces, which should have the exclusive right to levy taxes on goods and services within their respective boundaries. In the last 10 years, the federal government blatantly encroached upon their undisputed right by levying tax on goods and services under the garb of ‘presumptive taxes’ in income tax. Such taxes cannot be termed as taxes on income (which the federal government is empowered to levy under item 47 of the Federal List). They are tax on goods and services, the levy of which is the sole prerogative of the provinces.

The fact is that on the one hand, we have too many taxes at the federal, provincial and local levels, and on the other, the benefits of revenues are not reaching the poor masses. The few rich are the real beneficiaries of the taxpayers’ money.

In fiscal year 2006-2007, the total federal tax revenue collection was Rs843bn. The federal government showed total receipts (both tax and non-tax) at Rs1087bn, out of which the provinces received as little as Rs437bn. Interestingly, the federal expenditure under two heads alone i.e. defence and debt-serving was Rs515bn.

The overall deficit suffered by the federal government was Rs373.3bn. It is indeed a pathetic state of affairs, though Musharraf has persistently boasted of his regime’s ‘extraordinary’ economic performance achieved during his eight-year rule. The fact is that due to the elitist policies of the rulers, socio-economic disparities are multiplying, centre and provincial relationships are deteriorating and the gulf between the rich and the poor is assuming alarming proportions.

Our tax potential for the current year is nearly Rs1800-2200bn provided the tax base is made wider and equitable, the tax machinery is completely overhauled and exemptions and concessions available to the privileged sections of society are withdrawn.

In most parts of the world, sales tax on goods is a provincial or local levy. In Pakistan, it is a federal tax (the worst example of constitutional highhandedness), which is shared, to a negligent extent, with the provinces. As the centre will collect less than Rs950bn as tax revenue during the current fiscal year, the provinces will get less than Rs500bn from the federal pool. We are caught in a dilemma where the centre is unwilling to grant the provinces their legitimate right, and, in turn, the provinces are unable to reduce the ever-increasing burden of taxes on their voiceless poor masses.

The centre could have given the right of collecting some of the federal taxes to the provinces — like sales tax — had it increased revenue collection substantially. Tragically, despite all kinds of oppression, highhandedness, negative tactics, withholding of refunds, etc., the Federal Board of Revenue took four years — 1998-99 to 2001-02 — to cross from Rs307bn to Rs401bn — an average increase of Rs24bn a year.

From 2002-03 to 2004-05, the FBR managed to increase revenue collection from Rs460bn to Rs590bn — a poor performance as average annual increase did not cover even the inflationary impact. In 2005-06, the collection was Rs710bn, and last year it reached Rs.843bn. The FBR’s track record shows little possibility of achieving the Rs2800-3200bn mark in the next three years to give fiscal space to the centre and the provinces to come out of the present mess and extend some relief to the poor while investing in trade and industry to encourage growth.

Unless some radical steps are taken and a new constitutional taxing contract is negotiated between the centre and the provinces, there is little hope for mobilising tax revenues to achieve surplus federal and provincial budgets. At this rate, the conflict between the federation and the provinces on taxation issues will persist and the country will remain dependent on foreign loans and increased domestic borrowing (it has already crossed the three trillion rupees mark) and more and more people will be pushed below the poverty line.

If we want to come out of this crisis, there is an urgent need to reconsider equitable distribution of fiscal and taxation powers between the federation and provinces. True provincial autonomy can only be guaranteed if a fair assignment of tax is followed in letter and spirit. Electing some people under the local body elections and dislodging the District Management Service Group may have served the interest of the ruling junta, but it has failed to extend any autonomy to the provinces. Let the provinces have exclusive right over their resources and finances by granting taxation powers to the local governments so that democracy at the grassroots and funds for public services can be guaranteed.

The writers are adjunct professors at the Lahore University of Management Sciences (LUMS).

IF I were the Chinese bureaucrat responsible for guarding the sacred Olympic Flame, the place I’d worry about most is Australia. It was there, just before the Melbourne Olympics in 1956, that a student pretending to be an Olympic athlete ran up to the mayor of Sydney and presented him with an “Olympic torch” consisting of burning underpants in a can nailed on top of a chair leg. He was gone before they realised it was not the real thing.

His intention was to mock this pathetic neo-pagan ceremony that was originally invented by the Nazis to spice up the 1936 Olympics in Berlin. The 1936 Olympics was Nazi Germany’s coming-out party, so Hitler’s people arranged for 3,442 racially pure Aryan runners to do a relay race with an “Olympic torch” along the 3,442-km route from the Temple of Hera on Mount Olympus to the stadium in Berlin.

There had never been a torch connected with the original Olympic games in ancient Greece, and the revived Games got along without an international relay race just fine for forty years before the Berlin Olympics of 1936 -- but if there was one thing the Nazis did well, it was propaganda. Leni Reifenstahl even made a documentary film about how the torch came from Athens to Berlin (and within five years Hitler’s armies had occupied all the countries along the route).

This year’s Olympic Games were supposed to be Communist China’s coming-out-party, and the route is even more ambitious: twenty-one countries on all six inhabited continents. But that includes Australia, and I really wouldn’t send the torch there if I wanted to preserve China’s dignity.

As England is the spiritual homeland of irony, so is Australia the world capital of mockery, and by the time the torch gets there (if it ever does) the Australians are going to feel challenged. It was burning underpants in 1956; what might it be in 2008?

The bar will have been set quite high by the time the torch reaches Canberra. After the propaganda triumphs for the “Free Tibet” movement in London, Paris and San Francisco the rain of humiliations for the Chinese regime may ease off for a while (although I wouldn’t guarantee the torch an easy ride in Buenos Aires, either). But after Dar es Salaam, Muscat and Islamabad, where they don’t care much about Tibet, comes New Delhi, where some people care a great deal.

There will be a lot of Tibetans in New Delhi, so the run there, if it happens, may resemble a low-intensity war. Bangkok, Kuala Lumpur and Jakarta may be quiet, but then comes Canberra, where Prime Minister Kevin Rudd has already said that the blue-track-suited Chinese thugs who have jogged alongside the torch-bearers in other countries to fend off protesters will not be allowed to operate.

The “thug” description is courtesy of Sebastian Coe, the chairman of the London Organising Committee of the Olympic Games, who was overheard on the phone saying that the organisers should “get rid of those guys. They tried to push me out of the way three times. They are horrible....I think they were thugs.”

It has become a nightmare for the poor, doomed Chinese bureaucrats who set this thing up: constant humiliations if they carry on with the planned route (which also goes through Tibet itself) and utter humiliation if they cancel it.

For the moment, they are brazening it out. “The Olympic flame belongs to the people around the world,” said Wang Hui, a spokesman for the Beijing Olympic organising committee, “so the behaviour of a few separatists would not gain sympathy from people and will cause strong criticism and is doomed to fail.” So far, though, I haven’t been hearing much criticism.

Never mind the silly torch, and the equally bizarre three-layer cake that is the actual Olympics Games of today. (An international athletics competition on the bottom, an orgy of nationalist self-congratulation in the middle, and a sickly-sweet pantomime of international love and brotherhood on the top.) What’s actually colliding here are two irreconcilable views of the world.

For almost all Chinese, the turmoil in Tibet is a threat to national unity. Only in the past century have Tibet and the Turkish-speaking, Muslim province of Sinkiang come to be seen as a necessary part of that national unity, but they are now. Chinese propaganda insists that the local people support that consensus, but it makes no difference if they don’t. They have to stay, because national unity is at stake.

For almost everybody else, China and Tibet is obviously a colonial relationship, and it’s perfectly natural for the Tibetans to seek independence. They won’t get it this time round, and they may never get it, but why would you be surprised that they try? Indeed, why wouldn’t you support them?

Foreign governments will never support Tibet’s independence, because they depend on China’s trade and they value “stability” in China above all else. Foreign individuals are under no such constraints, and the interminable, multi-national Tour of the Torch is giving them a lot of opportunities to show their feelings. It isn’t “anti-Chinese,” just pro-Tibetan, but there will be much anger and many hurt feelings by the time this is done.