|
| August 17, 2008 | Sunday | Sha'aban 14, 1429 |
Woes of the displaced
Dengue is back again
If we had acted differently
Targeting aid workers
OTHER VOICES - Indian Press
WE know how Pakistan’s foreign policy developed and what a mess we are in today. Parts of our country are ungovernable and we have more foes in the neighbourhood than friends.
THREE western women working for an American aid organisation were shot dead in an ambush in Afghanistan. The women, a British-Canadian, a Canadian and a Trinidadian, were travelling by car in the eastern Logar province when they were attacked on Wednesday morning.
THE monumental political tussle over the exit of President Musharraf has gripped the nation and sparked frenzied, ever-changing speculation on the president’s fate. Some observations are in order. First, the president has clearly lost the moral right to stay in office. The four constituent provinces of the federation of Pakistan have spoken unanimously: they want President Musharraf to go. The votes required to impeach the president in a joint session of parliament appear to be firmly in the grasp of the ruling coalition. Talk of fomenting breakaway factions within the PPP, destabilising Sindh politically, and wooing independents in parliament to keep the president in office has proved far-fetched thus far. Second, the country continues to face severe governance crises. Inflation is at a record high, the rupee at a record low, the tribal areas and northern Pakistan are awash with militancy, suicide bombers have returned to strike terror in cities, relations with India are at their lowest point in years and the powers that be in Afghanistan have all but tried to hang the ISI. These challenges would test the strongest of governments at the best of times. Pakistan, of course, has no such luxury.
The guessing game is centred on what is being exchanged between the coalition leaders, the president and the parade of foreign interlocutors who have been wending their way through Islamabad. Speculation has mounted that the terms on which the president can make a graceful exit and be kept out of the hands of the politicians are being fought over. If indemnity for President Musharraf is the price that is being demanded for a quick end to the paralysing political crisis then the politicians should think hard about paying that price. Whatever the charges that the coalition can draw up against the president, from a historical perspective they can at least be matched by the sins of past leaders of this country. Politics of retribution at this critical time in Pakistan’s history would be a great disservice to the nation.
There is also a key unpredictable variable in this crisis: the Pakistan army. So far the army has remained neutral and not interfered in the political muckraking. This must be lauded. However, experience tells us that this will not last indefinitely. Institutional demands will push the army towards rescuing a beleaguered ex-chief if certain redlines are crossed. The question is: where does the army draw those redlines? As militants step up the campaign against security forces and India and Afghanistan rattle the security state complex of the establishment the army will necessarily be pushed into a defensive crouch, which may affect the tolerance it is willing to show for political instability. So given everything that is known — and unknown — the politicians must act decisively to end this crisis quickly.
AS Pakistan’s security forces step up their military operation in the tribal areas, unsurprisingly the civilian population caught in the crossfire has been fleeing from the war-stricken zone. Although precise numbers are not available, hundreds of thousands of men, women and children are believed to have been affected. With the war in Fata and Swat assuming a protracted character — Swat joined the fray in November last year whereas Waziristan had already become a battleground a year earlier — the displacement of local populations is becoming a way of life in the region that has periodically experienced the influx and exodus of refugees since the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in 1979. But this does not minimise the human dimension of the phenomenon in any way. While war brings death, injury and destruction of property, the displacement that follows inflicts its own miseries on the people. Made homeless and deprived of their livelihood, the refugees have to brave physical hardship as well as the emotional trauma of having their social and family support system devastated.
The NWFP government’s move to set up 13 camps for the displaced persons should, therefore, help assuage their wretchedness somewhat. Of course, the quality of the services provided in the camps and the facilities available would depend on the funds available to the Hoti government and the responsibility it feels towards the unfortunate victims who now find themselves trapped between the devil and the deep sea. That would determine the degree of relief the people get. At present the cash-strapped administration in Peshawar seems to be caught in a tussle with Islamabad to obtain financial assistance. Blaming the federal government for the imbroglio, Peshawar is demanding Rs1.5bn for refugee relief. This is not easily forthcoming. Only Rs100m has been offered so far. The danger is that this human problem that has yet to receive public sympathy could fall prey to infighting in the government and official neglect. Since it is the army, which is the sponsor of the military operation in the area and which wants the civilians to vacate the war zone, it should organise the evacuation operation so that it takes place in an orderly manner. Simply ordering the people to move out without the provision of transportation and food and shelter betrays a callous approach. How can people be held responsible for the war which has brought them immense misery?
DENGUE fever is here again and the problem is likely to get worse before it gets better — only if sufficient funds are pumped into its prevention. Around 94 patients have been admitted to various public and private sector hospitals in Karachi during the last one month with symptoms of dengue. Two more died recently — two had died in July. The health department has requested an allocation of special funds from the Sindh government in case of an outbreak of dengue fever in the province. The dengue phenomenon has one basic element that makes awareness the key to dealing with it: treatment is more troublesome than prevention. The health department needs to educate the people on how to protect themselves from contracting this disease from Aedes aegypti — the deadly dengue mosquito. It is also important to assess how prepared our healthcare providers are in case of an outbreak.
The Sindh health minister has a plan, what he doesn’t have are the funds. The plan requires a sum of Rs20m and includes provision of mega-platelet units, shifting of patients to a focal hospital and the launching of awareness activities. A striking revelation about the state of affairs was that cell separators purchased by the Sindh government for Rs3m each could not be utilised as the hospitals did not have the money to buy empty platelet bags. This machine was moved to the Civil Hospital Karachi. However, in case of extraordinary circumstances even CHK may not be able to afford the required amount of bags. Lack of funds will inhibit the plan from being implemented. This impediment is already hampering the optimum functioning of the existing infrastructure. In order to have a proper crisis management set-up, the urgency of the matter requires that sufficient funds are allocated to deal with the vector-borne disease. It is the need of the hour to be prepared for the worst case scenario for damage control. While it is paramount that awareness campaigns are launched and an outbreak prevented it is also imperative that the health department is ready to deal with the consequences of the lack of such measures. Thus a timely release of funds will lead to treatment and possible prevention.
Let us imagine what would have happened if our decision-makers had taken a different decision, all other things being equal.
I will narrate events in such a way as if these hypothetical decisions — ones which were never taken — are facts of history. This is the reality of hypothetics. Some people think it futile to enter into it at all. Please read and decide.As soon as the Pakistani flag went up in 1947, the decision-makers of the country spelled out the principles of the new country’s foreign policy. First, Pakistan would not initiate a war of aggression or use force unless enemy troops actually attacked its international borders. Secondly, the new country would be completely neutral and non-aligned and not a party to any international strife or quarrel. Thirdly, Pakistan would not help or abet any kind of insurgency or resistance in any other country by military, economic or covert means.
However, it would always side with the oppressed diplomatically and by vote in the United Nations. Soon after this announcement the new country was sorely tested as conditions in Kashmir started deteriorating.
The princely states were the first to test the new government. The Nawab of Junagadh wanted to opt for Pakistan but Pakistan said that, as most of the population of the state was Hindu, it was only fair for the ruler to opt for India. Later, when Maharaja Hari Singh of Kashmir finally acceded to India, the Pakistani decision-makers again reiterated the same principle. They were prepared to accept a partition of Kashmir along religious lines with the Muslim-majority areas acceding to Pakistan. They even went so far as to suggest that, since the wellbeing of the people of that state came first, they would accept it as an independent state.
However, they refused to allow tribesmen from Pakistan or irregulars to enter Kashmir and also condemned the Indian army for its entry into the former state. However, despite their principled stand that the will of the people be ascertained and followed in Kashmir and elsewhere, the rulers of Pakistan never followed an aggressive policy in Kashmir.
In 1965, some people thought that this was the time for wresting Kashmir away from India by sending trained fighters across the Line of Control to stir up a rebellion against Indian rule there. It seemed easy and some people still clamoured for winning Kashmir despite textbooks and media programmes promoting peace.
Thus, a section of the army high command and civilian decision-makers wanted covert action in Kashmir. However, the decision-makers had been made so used to policies of peace that better sense prevailed and this adventure was never undertaken. Instead, the grounds for possible friction in the Rann of Kutch were resolved.
The 1970 elections brought Sheikh Mujib to power in East Pakistan. The two wings of the country were so polarised that the ruling elite of Pakistan held a referendum to decide whether Pakistan could exist as one country or not. The decision in East Pakistan was for separation. This time again some people suggested that the military should be used in East Pakistan beginning with military action in Dhaka University. However, good sense prevailed again and a British-style partition was arranged. Trade, cultural and educational bonds flourished as they did between the British and Pakistan.
Although Pakistan had never been part of the western alliance or of any pact of the United States, in 1980 the US wanted to use Pakistan to help fight their proxy war against the Soviet Union in Afghanistan. Enormous amounts of money were offered and Pakistan was told that the Soviets would invade in order to get to the Arabian Sea. The decision-makers of Pakistan politely refused the money and said they would repel any armed aggression if and when the Soviet forces actually entered the country.
The Soviet Union, however, was no enemy of Pakistan. After all, the Pakistanis had never opposed the Soviet Union except when it had attacked a country but then they had also been critical of America when it had gone to war against Third World countries especially Vietnam. This policy of neutrality and justice had won Pakistan many admirers and no bitter enemies.
The US could not use Pakistan against the Soviet Union though it did fight its proxy war through some Arab states. Pakistan emerged from this war without a drug problem, without Arab militants on its borders and the few refugees who did come to Pakistan were given peaceful occupations and repatriated as soon as circumstances allowed. There was no interference from Pakistan in Afghanistan.
In 1999, some military adventurers wanted to occupy the heights in the Kargil sector but the decision-makers, who had just ended the Siachen adventure started by India, prevented this rash venture. True to its reputation, Pakistan remained committed to peace. The trend to suggest rash actions in the military high command was condemned by the civilian decision-makers and the people were taken into confidence. The common people, once they were convinced that peace had brought them prosperity, supported the decision for peace. After this the military was wary about such adventurism.
After 9/11 the Americans again approached Pakistan to help them fight Afghanistan. The Pakistanis refused while sealing their borders as much as was possible under the circumstances. They had never allowed their land to be used for covert attacks against any country and now the same policy was followed with great vigour. Despite pressure the Pakistanis did not allow any foreign fighters to seek sanctuary in Pakistan.
At the same time they scrupulously refused to hand over any of their citizens to America. The Americans threatened Pakistan but such was the reputation of the country that they did not attack this haven of peace in the midst of turmoil.
The result of such policies was that on Aug 14, 2008 Pakistan was called the Switzerland of the East. Its defence was in the hands of not only a small though highly efficient army but also the scientists and scholars it had produced. Like Switzerland, its citizens were trained for defensive warfare but the country firmly rejected aggression.
The above piece can be called hypothetics, that branch of historical fiction which begins by supposing that if such and such decision had been taken then what might have happened.
All three worked for the New York-based aid group International Rescue Committee..
George Rupp, president of IRC, said in a statement: “We are stunned and profoundly saddened by this loss.... Words are inadequate to express our sympathy for the loved ones of the victims and our devoted team of aid workers,” he said.
The attack, which was later claimed by the Taliban, is a significant new escalation in the violence in Afghanistan. Afghan President Hamid Karzai described the attack as unforgivable.
“It is not in our culture to kill women, Afghans never kill women,” he said. “This unforgivable incident, without any doubt, was carried out by enemies of Afghanistan, by non-Afghans.”
Abdullah Wardak, governor of Logar, said the women were travelling from the eastern city of Gardez to Kabul when their two four-wheel-drive vehicles were fired at by five gunmen. An Afghan driver was also killed, the other seriously injured.
Kai Eide, the United Nations special envoy in Afghanistan, said he was “shocked”. Eide said that Afghans faced a “growing humanitarian challenge” and called for respect of the neutrality of the aid community.
Local aid workers have been regular targets of the insurgents who aim to halt development work that might aid the fragile government build its authority in rural areas. Nineteen Afghans working for NGOs have been killed so far this year.
Wednesday’s attack was not the first time that insurgents have targeted IRC, which works on healthcare projects and provides returning refugees with shelter, water and sanitation. Three of its local offices have been attacked and destroyed since March. In 2007, two Afghans working for IRC were killed in an ambush, also in Logar province.
A Taliban spokesman, Zahibullah Mujahed, was reported to have claimed responsibility for the attack, saying a “military convoy” had been attacked.
Violence in Afghanistan has reached its worst level since the end of the Taliban regime in 2001.
— The Guardian, London
Looming despair
The Pioneer
NO matter what cynics … have had to say while predicting a bleak future for India ever since this ancient nation woke to freedom after centuries of thraldom to rapacious invaders … the people of India have celebrated Independence Day with spontaneous joy…. The sense of anticipation with which we would await Aug 15, however, is remarkably subdued — if not entirely missing — this time.... Despite our successes … despondency haunts us. This is not about hope being replaced by cynicism or excitement being supplanted by indifference; it is about ... realisation that our political class has failed to provide the leadership which this nation so desperately needs….
When power becomes an instrument to subvert democracy and make a mockery of the parliamentary system, as was witnessed during the recent vote on the confidence motion moved by the prime minister, then there is little or no reason to feel either hopeful or cheerful on this day. When governance is reduced to finding quick-fix solutions ... then faith in the system is bound to be eroded. When essential commodities become too expensive … then disquiet is bound to set in. When the nation is saddled with a prime minister obsessed with signing a bogus nuclear deal with the US … then questions are bound to arise about the future of our freedom. And, when politics becomes synonymous with pandering to castes and communities with no other purpose than to reap electoral benefits, then politicians are bound to be seen as beneath contempt. The perversion of secularism … has brought us to a situation where the country’s majority community increasingly feels that it is under siege....
Yet, it need not have been this way. As a nation, as a people, we have fared far better than those countries which became independent along with us. Despite repeated efforts to restrict liberty and curtail freedom, our democracy has survived. True, a large number of our people still live in poverty.... But it is equally true that India has progressed and many have prospered. If the West is now looking at India it is not because they realise their folly of sniggering at us all these years; India can now claim to be an emerging economy with enviable clout. In spite of all this, we cannot deny that there is a sense of despair and despondency. …Does this mean there is no light at the end of the tunnel? ...The answer … must be an emphatic no. The decrepit regime that now rules this country will surely meet its comeuppance. And thus shall hope be resurrected. — (Aug 15)
