Singh and the nuclear deal

WHEN a prime minister’s press secretary on his own initiative calls newspapers and television channels to tell them that he is neither confirming nor denying the PM’s resignation, the inference is that there is something wrong somewhere.

This is exactly the exercise which Prime Minister Manmohan Singh’s Press Secretary Sanjay Baru went over some time ago. The entire country was ablaze with rumours and the share market was adversely affected.

There is no doubt that Manmohan Singh has put all his weight behind the nuclear deal with America, even to the reported exasperation of Congress president, Sonia Gandhi. The Left is quite right when they say that he alone is bent upon going ahead with the deal. What surprises me is the abrupt change in the prime minister from his earlier observations: his government is not a one-issue government; the failure to sign the deal is not the end of the world.

Till recently whenever the co-ordination committee, comprising the Congress, its allies and the Left met the spirit of accommodation was so perceptible that all felt a way would be found to reach a consensus. The Left, which threatened to withdraw its support from the government if it made any move towards the deal, allowed the government to have talks with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) on the safeguards agreement. They feel let down. Now they have said that the prime minister’s departure for Tokyo to attend the G8 meeting will be considered the government’s decision to go ahead with the deal. So why has the prime minister taken such a tough stance?

The suspicion is that President Bush’s pressure, or for that matter America’s, has worked. I do not buy it because Manmohan Singh is not someone who would give in without believing that what he is doing is right. He may be honestly of the viewpoint that the deal is the best thing that will happen to the country. Indian civil society by and large thinks in a similar way. Probably, the prime minister believes that it is a historic moment for him to quit, if need be. He will leave in blazing glory, giving the impression that when it came to the country’s ‘interests,’ he sacrificed his office. The never-stopping taunt by the BJP that Manmohan Singh is a weak prime minister may also have spurred him to go ahead and prove that he is not.

I don’t know if his stand is correct. One, his party is not with him if the deal means a parting of ways with the Left and facing early elections. The Congress and its allies fall short of a majority if the 59 members of the Left withdraw their support. Two, the nuclear experts, including former director of Bhabha Atomic Research Centre, P.K. Iyengar, have said in a statement that the deal was not in the interest of India. They have no axe to grind and they know what they are talking about. Three, the general impression is that America is pushing us hard so that we become dependent on it and hitch our wagon with Washington’s, jettisoning our policy of non-alignment.

The evidence of America’s pressure is visible in statements from Washington. A US lawmaker, Gary Ackerman, has said this week: “I have a very difficult time understanding why India continues to pursue a gas pipeline with Iran and Pakistan....” Not long ago, US ambassador to India David Mulford warned New Delhi not to vote for Iran on a crucial IAEA board meeting and we voted at his bidding.

I do not really understand the government’s obsession with the deal. It has literally stopped the rest of the work. This is the time when all efforts should have been directed to stop inflation and price hikes which have made an average man’s life hell

The Left is also oblivious to the danger the country would face once the secular forces are divided. It has made all the efforts it could to stall the nuclear deal, but throwing out a secular government with the help of the BJP will give a deathly blow to progressive forces. The Left has to realise that while stopping the nuclear deal is important, but not allowing the country to go into the hands of the Hindutva crowd is equally paramount.

It’s a pity that a Communist Party of India — Marxist (CPM) representative played the communal card by warning the Samajwadi Party — which may support the Congress — that its Muslim members and supporters will abandon it if it signs the deal, which will be seen as a pro-American stand.

The latest statement by the prime minister should have mollified the Left. He has said that when New Delhi completes the process of negotiations with the IAEA and Nuclear Suppliers’ group, he will “bring it before the Parliament and abide by the House.” The only question is whether the deal has some confidential clauses or not. One thing which New Delhi has to guard against is America casting a shadow over our sovereignty. If, at some future date, we are obliged to carry out further nuclear tests to upgrade our capability, it shouldn’t mean that the Americans, under the terms of this current deal, would have the right to put their experts into our plants like a force of international policemen.

True, the nuclear deal will open up many facilities in technology that developing India badly needs. But we cannot barter away our independence. It took us 150 years to get rid of the British. We should not land ourselves in a situation where we remain sovereign on paper like present-day Iraq, but are actually subservient to Washington’s dictates.

I must confess that a Manmohan Singh of South-South cooperation report, warning the Third World against the machinations of developed countries, has changed over the years. I am not talking of his policy of globalisation, but of the pressure the World Bank and the multinational companies have come to wield during his regime.

The nuclear deal may open the floodgates for such cartels which stand to make billions from the concessions that New Delhi would inevitably make. I wish the prime minister, a brilliant economist as he is, had burnt the midnight oil to devise policies which would have uplifted the lower 70 per cent of people who, according to an official report, live on one dollar per day.

The writer is a leading journalist based in Delhi.

Pakistan’s circus

PAKISTANI student Samad Khurram’s act of snubbing the US ambassador by returning his reward has caught the media’s attention. While some condemned his act, others have lapped up his act of defiance and he is now the new hero.

Many who are upset with Samad have missed an important point that the manner in which the student was applauded by the media and other segments of society is an indicator of America’s waning popularity and also Islamabad’s inability to fathom the distance between public perception and state policies. But let’s for a minute question the young man’s logic. Perhaps Samad has not noticed the systemic flaw in our system. He failed to understand the most important feature of the Pakistani state, namely its client nature, which has very little option but to watch its patron get into a twist on something it has paid for. More important, should Samad’s example be followed by the rest of the student community which should find the courage to say no to opportunities offered by the US and the rest of the western world which the Pakistani government, like many other client governments, cannot resist?

Pakistan stands in the middle of two systemic fault lines. The first one pertains to Pakistan’s status as a client state. Policies do not get changed any more due to individual sacrifices because the ruling oligarchy is happy serving its patrons. The rulers are so comfortable working as mercenaries that bombing of Mohmand or Bajaur agencies or any other part of the population just does not matter any more.

The state machinery, which includes the military and the political parties, will not break away from the US. There is a strong pro-US lobby in the country and senior officials have worked for the CIA starting with various finance ministers. What is worse is that they will not even clarify that it is their own war being fought.

The other fault line pertains to the growing influence of the Taliban in the country or pursuance of policies which would indubitably encourage the Taliban-type. While there is the confusion in Waziristan, Fata and Swat, the deeper establishment also seems to be encouraging militants in other places such as the Punjabi Taliban. There is evidence of growing influence of the Punjabi Taliban especially in South Punjab. The question that bright young people like Samad Khurram must ask themselves is that the military action, which we lambast the US for, is what we might have to do ourselves because the Taliban will challenge and destroy the lifestyle of ordinary Pakistanis if they manage to gain strength.

Here is not just an issue of a liberal approach to what the country’s future should be. How will the majority of the population go about life once we have Taliban-type control over the bulk of the country, if not the whole of it? It is not just about the western educated elite but the majority of the population, including the lower classes, that will be uncomfortable with a Taliban style socio-politics. Pakistan is and remains an agrarian society where men and women work together in the fields. Just imagine a political system that would force the women to abandon their work and be confined to their houses. A similar situation applies to the cities where men and women have to work hard for their sustenance.

Surely, it is a bad approach to kill one’s own people and it is important to negotiate for peace. However, the ANP, one of the primary promoters of dialogue with the warlords in tribal areas, never ruled out military operation. The party has proposed a mix of dialogue and military operation where need be. There are many ways such as surgical operations (not carpet bombing) through which these elements could be eliminated.

The problem gets out of hand, however, where exogenous factors (in terms of the peace process) such as the intelligence agencies use militants and militancy as a tool to get greater American support and funding. It is absolutely bizarre that Peshawar is besieged by the Taliban despite the presence of an army corps and military operations conducted under Musharraf’s command. Surely, the Taliban haven’t just grown stronger in the past six months.

When it comes to dialogue, a question we must ask ourselves is that does the state really want to encourage other elements to share in the use of violence. The military of a state becomes a symbol of its strength and integrity (anywhere in the world) due to its ability to monopolise violence. A state which allows others to use violence, hence, becomes weak. This is an argument which Islamabad uses in the case of Balochistan. Then why not apply it in the case of tribal areas and Punjabi Taliban?

The confusion is at the end of both the government and general public. The government continues to look at the militants as assets which it could probably use in times of strategic need. These elements were created during the eighties to fight the Soviet military invasion of Afghanistan. Then, both Washington and Islamabad used to challenge the concerns voiced by Moscow and its foreign minister, Andrei Gromyko regarding radicalisation of the region. It is ironic that the Bush administration complains now about the jihadis they created.

As for Islamabad, it encouraged the militants to create strategic depth which now appears to be an inverse process. The Taliban are trying to create strategic depth inside Pakistan.

The general public seems equally confused about how to treat the Taliban. It is not just the issue of defending American security objectives or American-style freedom but the freedom of the people of Pakistan to live their lives as envisioned by the father of the state, Mohammad Ali Jinnah, when he said that this will be a country where people of all religions would have the freedom to pursue their faith.

The confusion regarding the war in the tribal areas reminds one of a joke about a bunch of people trying to determine Hanuman’s religion. A Muslim said that he was a Muslim and a Hindu claimed that Hanuman was a devotee of Ram and thus a Hindu. Similarly, a Christian claimed Hanuman to be of his faith and a Buddhist as his own. Finally, a Sikh said that Hanuman was a ‘sardar’. His logic was that what else would you call a deity who set his tail on fire and then burnt a village because someone kidnapped someone else’s woman.

Here we are confused about our future just because the American call it their war.

The writer is an independent strategic and political analyst.

ayesha.ibd@gmail.com

A dead constitution

A WRITTEN constitution must be applied not only in spirit but also in letter. An unwritten constitution, such as the British model, might allow a greater degree of manoeuvrability, but nevertheless the British actually adhere to their grund norm far more closely than we do to our written constitution.

Military adventurists, self-serving corrupt civilians and all the varying shades of so-called leaders in between, whom this unfortunate nation has been afflicted with, have reduced the sacrosanct basic law of the land to an obsolete and irrelevant document.

It has become the mistress of military dictators and the darling of crooked politicians. Instead of punishing them, it protects them. Instead of giving hope to the poor and the exploited, under a sound and stable system of government, it shows demagogues and dictators the way to power and exploitation through backdoors and remains mute when criminals escape the consequences of their crimes through shady deals.

What is the use of having a law if it is to be subjected to wilful breaches at each crucial, pivotal point? Breach of law has become the established norm to such an extent that it would be no quantum leap to do away with all flimsy pretences of democracy and institutionalise one man rule. What justification can there be for a Provisional Constitution Order (PCO) when the constitution already holds the field? There can be no more blatant instances where one man’s draconian will overrides the law. But if one man can thus impose his will, why can the elected parliament not likewise reassert its authority and undo the damage? The delay in dismantling the PCO is inexplicable and the continued operation of a supposedly representative government under the PCO amounts to acquiescing to and cooperation with a dictator. This neither inspires confidence nor bodes well for the rule of law.

Politicians have their own interests and have done no less harm to the constitution than military dictators. In recent times, they are responsible for passing the 17th Amendment, approving the PCO and marching to the tune of a uniformed drummer in the pursuit of ulterior personal motives. For instance, if the Peoples’ Party is so confident that it can restore the judges by passing their proposed constitutional amendment through parliament, then why does it balk at impeaching the president? Both constitutional amendments and impeachment require a two-thirds majority in the parliament. If it has the required majority to pass an amendment, then it should also have the same majority to impeach the president. Yet it chooses to promote the constitutional package but limits its opposition to the president to press statements. National interests take a backseat over personal interests and the law is routinely manipulated.

Facing opposition on the issue of increasing the strength of the Supreme Court bench, the government has managed to sneak the measure in by including it in the Finance Bill. Nawaz Sharif had announced that PML-N would not support the Finance Bill on this count, since it would secure the tenure of the judges who took oath under the PCO. But Zardari prevailed on him and succeeded in securing his support for the bill.

The passage of the bill was Zardari’s main objective, which he achieved, giving Nawaz Sharif nothing but vague assurances for the indeterminate future. Here was an opportunity for Nawaz Sharif to achieve something tangible on the judges issue and show that he is his own man. But instead, he chose to toe Zardari’s line and succumb to expediency.

Within twenty four hours of the passage of the bill, Nawaz Sharif was rewarded for his compliance by being disqualified from contesting the by-elections. Having made substantial political capital by taking a firm stand on the judges issue, Nawaz Sharif is now bound to lose considerable credibility on account of this major climb-down. Once again, political rather than national interests dictated the course of action and once again, the people of Pakistan and the law lost out.

The Constitution of 1973 has died many deaths at the hands of military and civilian dictators. A new social contract in the form of a new constitution is badly needed. But we lack the courage and ability to look beyond the 1973 Constitution, despite all its obvious flaws. We fear that the diversity of interests might make a fresh consensus impossible, which speaks volumes for the fragility of our national bond and identity. So we continue to labour under a constitution that is now just a shadow of its original self. Article 6 of the constitution notwithstanding, it cannot even defend itself against abuse and violation.

However, in an environment of blatant disregard for the law, demands for a new constitution are pointless, since a new constitution too will fall into the hands of the same callous lot who are responsible for the desecration of the 1973 Constitution. The even more urgent need now is for some house cleaning, starting at the top, to jettison bad blood and facilitate the infusion of a modicum of honesty, sincerity and respect for the law. How many opportunities have we missed to rid ourselves of subversive elements? First there was the Ehtesab Bureau and then the National Accountability Bureau. But these turned out to be just instruments of political coercion.

One fine day the MQM leadership and some erstwhile PML-N leaders were forced to flee into exile or were put behind bars on charges ranging from corruption to murder and terrorism, and the next day, when Musharraf needed their support to legitimise his usurped power, they were duly restored and rinsed clean of all sins to form a new ruling alliance. Similarly, the leaders of the People’s Party, once vilified as demons, became paragons of virtue as a deal was hatched in return for their cooperation in the presidential re-election.

Without the basic pre-requisite of thorough house cleaning, all reforms will be quite useless because a system is only as good as the people who run it. Ultimately, the onus rests with the people, who are the only ones who can wipe the slate clean.

Moving in the right direction

WITH the way dug-up roads and construction rubble have been playing havoc with city life for the past few years, pushing the mental and rational faculties of its inhabitants to the edge, the citizens must have heaved a sigh of relief that the latest budget presented by the City District Government Karachi (CDGK) for 2008-09 is not a document indicating obsession with mega projects and infrastructural wonders.

In fact, by shifting focus to the social sector that has remained largely neglected in the country, it has set a direction that others may do well to follow.

With a total outlay of Rs37.14bn and a minimal surplus of Rs105.68m, the city fathers have taken a path that was long overdue. The biggest allocation — Rs10.53bn — is still for works and services, constituting 28 per cent of the total estimated expenditure. But seen in the overall context, it is surpassed by the enhanced portions reserved for the key education and health sectors — Rs9.62bn and Rs3.55bn respectively — which together represent almost 36 per cent of the budget.

If amounts allocated for improving sports and recreational facilities in middle class and low-income localities are also added — and they should be — the focus of the budget-makers is clearly on the social side which is a major and welcome departure from the past. The budget document clearly shows the city nazim as leading from the front by cutting back on the expenses of his own secretariat. In fact, at Rs25m for the year, the allocation is the lowest under any head.

In terms of transport and commutation issues that have thus far remained the soft belly of the city’s successive administrative machineries, the budget has talked not just of multi-storeyed parking plazas to take the burden off major roads, but also of introducing 500 CNG buses during the year as part of a five-year Islamabad-sponsored plan that aims to increase the number to 4,000. Besides, there is an equal number to be added in the same period through public-private partnership initiatives.

Parking plazas in the downtown is, indeed, a practical approach. But there can be reservations about the plan to add thousands of buses on the already clogged roads of the metropolis. Large-sized buses can surely do the trick, but only if the existing rundown vehicles can somehow be dispatched to the junkyard. If past experience is anything to go by, the transport mafia, riding on the back of dubious fitness certificates issued by police, is so well entrenched here that it will take some guts — a lot of them, basically — for the CDGK to get this done.

Every time an effort has been made in the past, it simply snowballs into something ethno-political before everyone settles down to the same old rut. That being so, adding 8,000 more buses to the existing mass will only result in more mess on the roads; not less. As has been widely suggested for long, a mass-transit plan might be a practical approach to the tricky issue and the CDGK budget has rightly apportioned Rs531.79m to take the Karachi Rapid Rail Mass-Transit System forward.

It is certainly not a simple task to run a city that has 18 towns and 178 union councils — a city larger in size and population than 60 countries across the globe. But it is a task that needs to be done effectively for Karachi contributes almost two-thirds of the national revenue. Though execution of these plans in the social sector will seriously test the commitment and competence of the CDGK, by focusing on all the right areas in the budget, it does establish the rectitude of its vision.

What will be seen, however, with a certain degree of uneasiness is the expenditure on Community Police and the Command and Control Centre that entails surveillance of the whole city through physical patrolling and camera monitoring. On the face of it, this is being done ‘to implement municipal laws’ and ‘to protect bridges and other CDGK installations’, but there are those who take it as a move that will ultimately end up creating a security system parallel to that of the city police.

Given today’s fragile environment, especially in a city that receives intra-country immigrants in large numbers, any increase in security measures can only be welcomed. But the fact that Karachi is also prone to political violence is making people wary of the parallel network. The CDGK would do well to sort it out with the provincial government to calm frayed nerves.

And, talking of jangled nerves, the sudden twist in the ongoing KWSB tale in which the CDGK has absolved itself of all responsibility — fiscal and otherwise — in its latest budget, has only added to the worries of the citizens. With monsoon round the corner, the mess on the roads, streets, nullahs and even entire localities is likely to revisit the city as it does every time it rains. Even with a clear-cut hierarchy to manage the issue, the city suffers to an unbelievable extent. Now, with the CDGK moving out, the provincial government, which had initiated the row a couple of months ago, will have to face the music. But, for sure, those who suffer will have nothing to do with either of the governments; they will be the people of Karachi. They are keeping their fingers crossed.