CHOICES have consequences and the choices that Pakistan is going to make today will have either positive or catastrophic consequences for the coming generations.

Let us hope and pray that despite incredible pressure from those who are determined to destroy Pakistan for working with the West to root out terrorism, and paradoxically, from the West for ‘not doing enough’, Pakistan is able to get through this tremendously challenging time without any damage to the country.

However, if we as a nation are determined to succeed in the future, it is critical that we as a country must not forget our mistakes.

Regretfully, when unelected officials opted to involve Pakistan in the fight between the Soviet Union and the United States, Pakistan became the central hub of training for activists and militants who were driven by religious fervour to fight the communists. These activists and militants were recruited and trained in the name of religion from around the globe. In this process, nobody even considered the possibility of a religious fight against communism becoming a global threat, once the short-term goal of defeating the Soviet Union was achieved.

More importantly, and rather ironically, the decision makers in Pakistan utterly failed to understand that by fighting for one particular ideology, sooner or later Pakistan itself could become what Afghanistan was in the seventies and eighties: an international battleground where proponents of two very different ideologies would wage an intense war and subsequently, one or perhaps both sides would rely on increasingly brutal tactics to achieve victory. Hence the nuisance of terrorism for Pakistan.

According to a report by one agency in Pakistan, the country has suffered about 30 suicide attacks between January through September 2008, killing over 500 innocent civilians and critically wounding about 800. This terribly saddening report becomes even more depressing when we learn that Pakistan has been the target of more terrorist attacks than Iraq and Afghanistan, two countries where an all-out war is being waged. And yet, as cruel as it sounds, to the dismay of those who are suffering these daily bombings, astonishingly, Pakistan is blamed for not being a serious partner in the fight against terrorism.

Please, at least give Pakistan a break, if it can’t get credit for all it has done so far.Before the devastating attack in Islamabad that destroyed the Marriott hotel and killed over 60 people, pundits in Washington, New York and London routinely and unnecessarily criticised Islamabad for not ‘taking on the terrorists’. While sitting in comfortable and safe studios, these so-called experts regularly pointed fingers at Pakistan for not doing enough, even though Pakistan was taking casualties day after day.

To support their unsubstantiated theories, these studio experts exclusively relied on statistics and computer-generated charts, but they failed to take into account the ground realities. Their analysis, with few exceptions, was superficial at best. Worst, this instant analysis was driven by the necessity of compressing complex issues into 30- or 40-second sound bites, and this practice perpetuated the myth of Islamabad being complicit in terrorism, an outrageous fabrication completely debunked by the number of deaths that Pakistan has endured, both on the battlefield against the terrorists and by civilians across Pakistan.

No country, government and society is perfect, and Pakistan is no exception, but historians looking objectively at the evidence relating to the contribution made by Pakistan since the late seventies would have to conclude that Pakistan has done more than most countries when it came to defeating the Soviet Union in Afghanistan, and now in the global fight against religious militarism.

Given Pakistan’s record, it is absolutely safe to assume that Pakistan will continue to do whatever it has to do to save itself and the rest of the world from the nihilists. There shouldn’t be any doubts about Pakistan’s resolve to defend its culture, its heritage and its future. Therefore, it is both important, and wise that allied forces don’t make this fight more complicated by invading Pakistan’s territory.

Collaboration, not unilateralism, is the key to success, if we look at the recent war history, either in Afghanistan or in Iraq.

It is also worth noting that bombs and missiles alone won’t be enough to win this fight. We also need schools, roads, hospitals, electricity, clean running water, a vibrant and growing economy that creates jobs, and for this to happen, the international community has to come forward with generous non-military aid. If the rest of the world is interested in seeing Pakistan emerge victorious and triumphant in the long and difficult war against terror, they should ask Pakistan what they can do to help, not lecture Islamabad about how to run its affairs.

Instead of pressuring Islamabad to fight day and night, the rest of the world should assist the government in developing and implementing a comprehensive strategy to combat social and economic challenges as well.

Leaving aside those who insist that dark and gloomy days are ahead for Pakistan, it is obvious that despite all that is going on in Pakistan, remarkably, the political leadership, or at least those who were elected in the last election, are demonstrating incredible maturity. Instead of denigrating each other now that they are no longer allies, Nawaz Sharif and Asif Zardari treat each other with respect and deference.

After losing the presidential election, Nawaz Sharif personally went to congratulate Asif Zardari, a supremely democratic gesture that made every Pakistani proud. These developments and more importantly, these gestures of cooperation and mutual respect, are crucial because the country cannot afford another political crisis. Fortunately, the nation is coming together to save itself from the negative forces bent on destroying national confidence by carrying out vicious attacks.

Despite the threat of terrorism, Pakistan is on the recovery path because of the thriving democracy in the country. For decades, the people of Pakistan have survived without any help from their government. The wheel of commerce has been in motion even when the business environment was not hospitable. The people of Pakistan are tough, and they have proved their resilience over the years despite coups, military rule and other challenges that tested Pakistan as a nation, and it is safe to assume that the country is not ready to give up on itself or its future.

bilalqureshi32@gmail.com

PAKISTAN is perhaps the only country in the world where citizens are in a perpetual state of worry and fear about their country’s very existence. Since 1947, various books and research papers have been predicting the demise of Pakistan, including Tariq Ali’s Can Pakistan survive? in 1971.

In 1971, questions about the viability of what remained of Pakistan were seriously raised and there were valid reasons for that. Pakistan’s arch enemy had succeeded in reducing Pakistan to half, and in Indira Gandhi’s words “threw the two-nation theory into the Arabian Sea”. The world witnessed the abject surrender of Pakistan’s 93,000 armed personnel, the biggest in Muslim history. A part of West Pakistan’s land mass was under Indian occupation. The economy was in tatters. There was an atmosphere of despair, and demoralisation was writ large on people’s faces.

But it was amazing that with spectacular resilience, forbearance and patience, the Pakistani nation overcame this multifaceted trauma, and after putting its act together, started moving forward once again. In 1973, we succeeded in framing a constitution which, in spite of many mutilations, still holds the nation together.

In 2008, we are once again facing a similar situation. But the reasons are different. Currently, what depresses ordinary Pakistanis is rising religious militancy and a grim situation on the northwestern borders putting Pakistan’s integrity in danger as never before. Besides there is an economic meltdown resulting in runaway food inflation, and the weakening of the state’s writ leading to a deteriorating law and order situation, making everyone unsafe. All these problems put together have created a sense of insecurity and a general feeling of helplessness. Even the usual gaiety and exuberance which was expected on the induction of a democratically elected government is missing.

As if this were not enough, in recent months a number of articles and maps have appeared in the print media, predicting the balkanisation or an early demise of Pakistan. Discussions on private TV channels also set off alarm bells. This has added to fears and apprehensions. As a result, economic activity has slowed down, so much so that in real estate and the stock exchanges there are no buyers. Even those people who had great faith in the country’s future seem to be puzzled by these developments.

I was surprised when I received an invitation from a school of architecture to be a panelist in a debate which was discussing the topic ‘Is Pakistan on the verge of implosion?’ Whether Pakistan is going to implode or not is a separate issue, but the very fact that this is being discussed amongst students raises serious questions. Is it not time to sit up and analyse what is happening in and around Pakistan, and what the future holds for us?

When Pakistan came into being there was great euphoria: it was not just the birth of a new state but also the birth of Pakistanis as a nation. But soon we found that it was a state in search of a nation. It was ironic that instead of starting the process of nation-building, our ruling elite thought that mere religion or slogans like the ‘ideology of Pakistan’ could bind the people together. All promises of social justice, people’s welfare and egalitarianism made during the Pakistan movement were ignored, and almost all resources were used to make Pakistan a militaristic state. Consequently, the concept of nationhood was further eroded.

At a political level, instead of a decentralised democratic dispensation, we opted for a viceregal system, concentrating all powers at the centre. Local needs were ignored which resulted in huge imbalances and regional disparities. Pakistan could have emerged as a more cohesive country if provinces were made autonomous with minimum central control. But this was anathema to the oligarchy of powerful vested interests which hijacked the state of Pakistan.

Nationhood in newly independent countries is a fragile plant and is nurtured and strengthened by the political process which results in the empowerment of the people. Trade unions, peasant organisations, workers’ guilds, even students’ unions play a key role in bringing the people together. In Pakistan, neither was mainstream political activity allowed to blossom, nor did the equitable distribution of economic largesse take place. For 34 years, the country remained under direct military rule, which by its very nature is anti-people. Consequently, people gradually felt alienated from the system, and started looking for alternative identities.

Pakistan would have been a prosperous country by now if our rulers were not suffering from megalomania and delusions of grandeur. Take the 1965 war. Pakistan was well on its way to ‘take off’ when Ayub Khan started dreaming of being a second Salahuddin Ayubi and started a totally unnecessary war which pushed us back by 20 years.

Next, take 1971, when Yahya Khan held free and fair elections, and Pakistan could have emerged a politically stable country, if the Awami League’s mandate was accepted. But in his arrogance, naivety or both, he preferred to surrender before India rather than transferring power to our Bengali brethren.

Last, take the Kargil episode. In 1999, the political leadership of both India and Pakistan were showing signs of maturity and were willing to settle the Kashmir issue, but Gen Pervez Musharraf intentionally sabotaged the process.

1965, 1971, 1999 were all self-inflicted wounds, so is the Afghan policy which army generals are obsessed with and are not ready to discard even if it puts Pakistan’s integrity and security in danger. Who took all the crucial decisions in Pakistan history? A cabal of generals without even consulting their own colleagues. Who suffered? The people of Pakistan. What is the net result? Today Pakistan is the most dangerous place in the world.

Matters are appalling at the level of governance, but at a societal level things have drastically changed during the recent years. Although illiteracy is still pervasive, the communication revolution has changed the lives of people. They are more aware of what is happening around them, and are becoming more demanding and assertive. They want space for participation, and a share in the decision-making process. The younger generation is raising new questions. They want justice, fair play, an accountable and transparent government, and a system based on merit. In last year’s movement for the restoration of judges, Pakistan’s civil society spoke up for the first time.

Pakistan will neither implode nor explode if the people have a stake in its existence. We can overcome the threat of economic meltdown if the elected government is bold enough to undertake fundamental structural reforms. For combating rising religious militancy, what is needed is a consensus among all stakeholders (political leadership, the army and the people) on the basic issue: is it our war, or an American war, and what are the ways to deal with it?

There are people who are waiting for divine intervention, but they should know that the days of miracles are over. Countries do not survive on rhetoric or slogans alone. They survive on people’s strength and their determination, which is not lacking in Pakistan’s case.

WHILE President Asif Ali Zardari says we are in a state of war, it is amazing that the government and the media have not yet clearly spelled out how the enemy is to be defined.

Normally, an enemy is an enemy. But every war has, and must have, a well-developed jargon that conveys to the world and to the people the idea of the enemy as perceived by the belligerent power.

We know that in the First World War, Germany was the principal enemy. But the western allies told their people that they were fighting a “war to end all wars”. In the Second World War, Germany and Japan were the main foes, but to prove that they were not waging a war for territorial gains, the western Allies said their aim was to rid the world of fascism.

As for the Cold War that waged with full fury for more than four decades, it spawned a lingo that would remain surpassed for long for its venomous contents, astonishing variety and mind-boggling abundance. The media on both sides played a major part in denouncing the other bloc’s way of life.

Much of it has been forgotten — iron curtain, bamboo curtain, free world, brainwashing, rectification camps, gulags, communist subversion, double-speak, anti-people forces, exploiting classes, comprador capitalism, imperialism, classless society, class struggle, the Party, and much more.

In 2001, following 9/11, America coined a term which the Bush administration saw to it the world accepted — a ‘war on terror’. The shibboleth has caught on.

Today, Pakistan is at war, but who are we fighting and who is the enemy? The answer is the Taliban. But does the word Taliban convey to our people the contempt and revulsion attached to an enemy? For many, the Taliban represent a religious movement, not necessarily hostile to Pakistan and not necessarily an enemy of the people. For some, the Taliban are merely misguided zealots, who can be tamed and won over through dialogue and reason. Many people in this category — and they are a powerful segment of society, state and media — are not prepared to accept the Taliban as the enemy of the state of Pakistan.

The reason behind the government’s inability to evoke the cooperation of the vast majority of the people against the Taliban is its failure on the propaganda front. In fact, the government can hardly be said to be aware of the need for developing an intelligent and well-coordinated strategy for a media blitz on the enemy; on the contrary, it is the Taliban who are waging a very successful propaganda war against the government, advancing their cause insidiously and winning supporters through sections of the media with deep sympathy for them.

One popular channel calls the Taliban mazahmat kaar. This is a newly developed translation for resistance fighters. Mazahmat kaars is a term that can be applied to the Kashmiri guerillas in the Indian-occupied Valley and to the Palestinians in the Israeli-occupied territory. By no stretch of the imagination can Islamabad, Rawalpindi, Lahore, Peshawar, D.I. Khan, Charsadda, Mingora and large tracts of Swat be called occupied territory.

In these cities and elsewhere the Taliban have murdered Pakistani soldiers, including a general belonging to the medical corps, have attacked military and civilian installations, mosques, Eid congregations, a peace jirga, at least one funeral procession and crowded markets, and blown up army, navy and air force buses carrying students. Chinese nationals are their favourite targets, because China is Pakistan’s “all-weather friend”. They have also slaughtered captured Pakistani soldiers. To call these criminals and rebels mazahmat kaars is to honour them and betrays a very clever attempt to whitewash their criminality.

The government has not bothered to evolve an appropriate term for the enemy. The state-controlled PTV refers to the Taliban as askaryet pasand — a very awkward translation for ‘militants’, as if we are talking not about a rebellion at home but about the distant Tupamaros in Uruguay.

There is only one and obvious term for the Taliban enemy — rebels in English and baaghi in Urdu. The Taliban have gone beyond terrorism; they are no more, like the Basque separatists in Spain, part-time terrorists. They have an army — a highly motivated one — and their sources of funding are unlimited; procuring arms is not a problem for them, some of their arms come from powers known to be hostile to Pakistan, and the sophistication of their weaponry has surprised our military.

Their intelligence system has been working efficiently, and often they hoodwink the Isaf and Americans on the other side of the Durand Line by disinformation. This has led quite often to wrong targets being bombed, with civilians being the casualties. This earns them sympathy points and the American-Isaf leadership loses.

They believe they are a state within a state, they have set up a parallel judicial system and are bold enough to show their judicial system in action to the media. Pakistan, thus, has to accept the challenge and crush the rebellion. For that it is essential that the Taliban and their supporters are stripped of the halo of respectability and presented to the people of Pakistan in their ugly reality for what they are — rebels. Helping crush these rebels is the duty of all Pakistanis because the Taliban are waging war on the Islamic world’s only nuclear power.

“SURPRISE is the greatest gift which life can grant us,” noted Boris Pasternak. In light of the recent cathartic capitulation in the global financial markets, one can confidently say that the bankers on Wall Street and in the City of London will not agree with Boris Pasternak.

But then again, why are people so shocked? Is this the disappointment that follows any addictive or binge behaviour? Or, is it legitimate to expect that the gravy train of high finance would have continued forever? Why was this not predicted with advanced econometric models? And why was the urgency of the situation denied in the face of conflicting data? The answer is simple — human nature, or more specifically, greed and hubris. Alan Greenspan politely called it “irrational exuberance”.

We are not going to delve deeply into what caused the present crisis. We all know it was triggered by the sub-prime credit crisis in the US. What should concern us more is why it happened It brings back the age-old question that was first asked in the aftermath of the Great Depression of the 1930s. Is it the failure of the free market system or that of governments who did not curtail the excessive activities of their financial institutions? Although one might be sympathetic to some of Marx’s ideas on historical materialism, this writer remains a firm believer in free market economics and would have to place the blame on the regulatory regime.

To recount just a few faults in the system — the credit rating system requires far greater disclosure than there exists under the current regime. Also, the practice of rating agencies being paid by the issuers of securities that they rate must stop. And, no one should forget that even if you package different classes of securities with different risk profiles together, to increase their rating, you cannot eliminate systemic risk. Off balance sheet financing has its limitations, you can push it off your balance sheet but it does end up on someone else’s! This is what creates systemic rot.

Complex derivative transactions must be tempered. There is no point engineering complex products which obscure location of ultimate risk in the system. Bankers and their lawyers work hard to either mitigate or allocate risk. Risk is never eliminated. It is useful to know where it lies in the system so that one can act accordingly. Western financial institutions can learn from Islamic finance, with its emphasis on risk sharing and its prohibition on highly speculative activities.

The US Glass-Steagall Act of 1933 introduced the separation of banks according to their business. However, provisions that prohibited bank holding companies from owning other financial companies were repealed in 1999 by the Clinton administration. While the repeal helped save the life of Merrill Lynch, one wonders if it is in the best interests of the account holders of the Bank of America.

Finally, the short-sighted remuneration system of investment bankers is also to blame. Focus on hefty bonuses given on the completion of transactions before seeing the outcome of such transactions strips all incentive for such bankers to create long-term sustainable returns for their institutions. Ken Fisher, the legendary American fund manager, wrote a book called The Only Three Questions that Count: Investing by Knowing What Others Don’t. Question three that he insists every fund manager must ask is “What is my brain doing to mislead me?” This is important to avoid the kind of hubris that people can succumb to while investing their own and other people’s money.

The German humanist and philosopher Erich Fromm noted that “greed is a bottomless pit which exhausts the person in an endless effort to satisfy the need without ever reaching satisfaction.”

Working as an international finance lawyer, this writer has always reminded himself of Fromm’s words when faced with the excesses of international finance. Admittedly, this writer also contributed to it, albeit as a lawyer and adviser on debt-financed corporate acquisitions in Europe at the time. The ethical rules of this profession, which include, “everyone deserves good representation” and “act in the best interests of your clients” can provide some comfort. The investment bankers must find their own comfort somehow.

However, we cannot say that investment bankers do not perform a very useful function. Their financial engineering has brought many products and securities to the markets and have provided funding for some extremely useful and socially regenerative projects. It is their financial engineering that has saved some of the largest corporations in the world from the brink of collapse.

But despite the necessity of the kind of financial engineering that investment banks and their bankers come up with, people by their nature are fallible. That is why simpler, stronger and more efficient regulation is required. That is the responsibility of the state and indeed its duty to its people. Curtailing individual and institutional excesses is what can preserve free market economics and is the order of the day.

Earlier this year, at the Islamic Financial Services Board conference held in Bahrain, the need for a global sheriff for the financial services industry was advocated. In light of the events of recent weeks, one feels that a global regulator for the financial services industry is needed now more than ever before. While it may be difficult for sovereign regulators to lose some control over their activities, it is important to maintain and protect the integrity of the global financial system. This should herald a new era for international finance.

The writer is an international commercial lawyer.