| October 17, 2008 | Friday | Shawwal 17, 1429 |
To send a letter to the Editor
Click here
Hello, Gorgeous!
Respect for the president
War against ignorance
Rumour mongers damaging economy
Wrong perception
Building Pakistan-India relations
Balanced approach
No payment, please
Nobel hopeful
Global issues need global solutions
Readers are requested to restrict their comments to a maximum of 400 words. We reserve the right to edit letters for reasons of clarity and space. Letters, including those by e-mail, should carry the complete postal address of the sender. The views expressed in these columns do not necessarily reflect the views of the newspaper.—Editor
REALISATION has dawned in the midst of warm handshakes, new outfits and beaming smiles by political leaders that Pakistan is in a state of war which must be won. The government must take the nation into confidence.
The terrorist attack on Islamabad’s landmark Marriott Hotel was probably the most high-profile target after the parliament, presidency and the Prime Minister’s House. If government officials were the target of the terrorists and they could not be detected until they mistakenly or by plan attacked the Marriott Hotel speaks volumes of the intelligence agencies.
The nation knows quite well about our investigations and reports on a multitude of assassinations of leaders and disasters in Pakistan all of which have left us clueless and hopeless. The latest attacks on the anti-terrorism police quarters and in an NWFP agency area confounds the issue even further.
It seems unlikely that the US will stop its policy of aerial surveillance and attacks on suspected targets in the Fata areas or the right of hot pursuit while Pakistan anxiously waits for Congress to pass the democracy dividend aid bill introduced by the Democrats of which vice presidential candidate Joe Biden is a big supporter.
This will mean $1.5bn for Pakistan each year for 10 years and may perhaps be our main hope for stability. So while democracy may be the best revenge against authoritarian rule, it is also likely to pay the best dividend like a blue chip share.
The government, it seems, has come to the conclusion that there is no way out except to fight and control Taliban while keeping open the option of a negotiated settlement with peace as a priority, coupled with close cooperation with our immediate neighbours India, Iran and China. The government must take the nation into confidence and procure the support of the media and civil society to deal with the crisis. The PPP must make serious efforts to bridge the gap with the PML(N) and bring it into a national unity government. If this means an understanding with the legal fraternity and Nawaz Sharif on the judges’ issue, 90 per cent of which is now a fait accompli, this must be done expeditiously.
Mr Sharif must also show a degree of flexibility on national issues and correct the image in which he has been cast as a person who is soft on Taliban.
The government has not been able to address the all too important issues of finance, energy and food crisis facing the country. The looming water crisis is an addition to our problems. A full cabinet of ministers is still not in place and nation has still not had the benefit of hearing and understanding the government’s plans to deal with these issues. As the president is reported to have said in the US “hoping and wishing is not a solution”, so let the government show it can act on all fronts.
There is no shortage of talented persons in Pakistan. You only have to pick those who are interested in serving the country and not themselves. If you cannot find such persons within the body of elected representatives sitting in the parliament in Islamabad, the government must and should look to technocrats to assist government ministers.
The appointment of Shaukat Tarin is one good example and this precedent must be followed by the government in other areas so that there is leadership and policy-making on critical issues facing the nation.
This is the time for leadership and display of sterling qualities with the vision of statesmen. We can have only one president and one prime minister but we can certainly avail ourselves of collective wisdom to steer this country out of crisis by a national unity government assisted by capable and honest advisers, all of whom must report to parliament regularly so as to ensure parliamentary supremacy.
Political infighting must end forthwith. We have only one country and every Pakistani needs to knit himself and herself into the fabric of Pakistan. Only then can we survive as a nation.
LIAQUAT H. MERCHANT
Karachi
IN her column, ‘Hello, Gorgeous’ (Dawn Magazine, Oct 12), Anjum Niaz has noted: “Ever since she (Sarah Palin) won the beauty contest way back in 1984, she’s had men telling her how gorgeous she is. The latest being our president”. In the end, she has written: “A piece of advice to the men in this country: stop calling women ‘gorgeous’!”
I am afraid she is being a spoilsport: why deny our men the few opportunities they get to vent their feelings? If Mr Zardari wanted to call Ms Palin ‘gorgeous’, or felt like hugging her, it was a normal male instinct, wasn’t it?
This reminds me of an incident from long ago. During my first visit to the West, which occurred when I was a youth, one evening, while strolling back from the Eiffel Tower, I encountered a charming young Parisian woman. When our eyes met, she smiled. At the time I didn’t know it was common courtesy in the West for strangers to smile if their eyes happened to meet.
I thought that since we didn’t know each other she must have smiled at someone else who may be walking behind me. So I turned around to see who it was the damsel was so pleased to see, but found nobody.
Belatedly I realised it was only me that she must have smiled at. Feeling very elated by the thought, I quickly glanced in her direction and thought I should let her know how much I, as a friendless man in a foreign land, appreciated to be smiled at. Also, could I please be smiled at by her for the remaining few weeks that I was going to be there?
However, lack of courage, or inexperience, kept me from doing that. I am about as old as our president — give or take a few years — but, to this day, I haven’t forgotten that incident, nor have I ever been able to overcome my cowardice. But, Mr Zardari’s example has given me courage enough and the next time I come across a pretty lady in the West (but never in Pakistan), I am going to tell her how gorgeous she is, regardless of what my better half or anybody else thinks about it!
A READER
Karachi
THIS is apropos of K. Murad Bey’s letter, ‘Unjustified criticism of the president’ (Oct 9) in which he criticised the citizen of Pakistan (Anwar Syed) for being critical of President Asif Ali Zardari. I am still trying to figure out what he meant by ‘respect to the office of the president’.
Did he mean that there should be no questions or criticism directed from the people of Pakistan when a person, who represents the country in the United Nations, scraps a speech collaborated by the foreign minister’s office and uses his very good friend, who happens to be a prominent Jew, Mark Siegel?
I do agree with Mr Bey’s one statement, “change the mentality of the people for which the whole educational system is required to be changed”, so in the future people won’t vote for politicians who, for their own gain, elect more corrupt politicians in the name of democracy.
ZAIN K
New York City
JUST one look at the headline of Abdullah Khadim Hussain’s well written article (Education section, Oct 12), I realised that Pakistan should be fighting the war against ignorance and not war against terror, which should have been left to Americans and their other allies.
Islamabad should have been neutral in this war by resisting the US pressure — like all other neighbouring countries of Afghanistan are on the fence.
Now the question is ‘how Islamabad could have resisted US pressure’?
President Musharraf was capable enough to resist the US demand to establish a strong US base in Balochistan with Nato forces in it to watch and contain China and Iran. He could have stood firm against joining coalition.
But he didn’t know how deep his step would go down into Taliban’s quagmire. He also believed the Indians, naively of course, that India would not take advantage of the ‘adverse situation for Pakistan’ which New Delhi took. What good is India if it does what it says?
Now coming to Mr Hussain’s subject. He says he has not heard of a village or a settlement where there is a literate or educated person. In such places the illiteracy rate is 100 per cent.
The same is the case with all villages — which means that, as far as villages are concerned, everybody is ignorant — the exception is that the chaudhry or the wadera or the sardar, along with his sons, may be literate.
But the big dent in ignorance has been made by urban people — much to the dismay of Taliban and their like minded people. Taliban and their friends are tooth and nail against education — they have burned or destroyed almost half of the schools in tribal areas and Swat.
So we cannot say also that there is some place in Pakistan which could be called ignorance-free. The 65 per cent majority of pure and pious people of Pakistan are ignorant. Some blame their poverty for illiteracy. But then, I have to tell you that poverty and ignorance breed crimes.
This is the reason that we find our nation has become the crowd of criminals — at least 65 per cent of them.
So take one thing from me: you cannot convert them into a decent nation unless you educate them — from grassroots level to higher stage.
My suggestion is that the government should launch a three-pronged attack on the maladies — taking education to all corners of the country, alleviation of living conditions and tackling the terrorism — in this order.
M.K. NAQVI
Karachi
THROUGH your esteemed daily I would like to express my concern over a series of rumours being spread against some of our foreign banks, causing irreparable damage to our economy. It is generally believed that whenever enemies of a country want to finish it, they first destroy its economy. This also seems to be happening in Pakistan where banking, which is considered the strongest sector, is being targeted.
Unfortunately, one of the banks, which are on the ‘hit list of the rumour-mongers, has its head office in Abu Dhabi. This Gulf state, as many of us know, is one of our most friendly, rather brotherly, countries and, according to one report, has so far invested around $10bn in our country.
Abu Dhabi is also hosting a conference of Pakistan’s donor countries. On the success of this moot, to a great extent, will depend the survival of our country. As such this conspiracy appears well planned and those behind it want the destruction of Pakistan. Those who are spreading such rumours are doing it either unknowingly for fun, giving a proof of their foolishness or they are doing it deliberately in a planned manner at the behest of some enemies of our country.
I also appeal to my Pakistani brethren not to be misled by such a nefarious propaganda and continue to have faith in their banks. Fortunately, the State Bank of Pakistan has taken some timely and prompt measures to protect the banks from the designs of the conspirators. More steps are, however, needed by the government of Pakistan.
In this connection, I will strongly suggest that SMS messaging services offered by mobile companies, which are at present misused to spread false rumours or dirty jokes, should be at least temporarily suspended or through extra taxation be made a little expensive. This hobby is also affecting physical and moral health of our youngsters and wasting their time and energy.
The president and the prime minister are also requested to conduct an inquiry to find the answers to such questions — who are behind this conspiracy? What are their real motives? How can this conspiracy be countered? Not only this, those identified should be given an exemplary punishment.
K. MURAD BEY
Karachi
Mr Shaukat Tareen is misleading the people by saying that the rupee has fallen to its correct level as it was kept artificially high by the previous government. Nothing could be further from the truth. Mr Tareen knows fully well that it was through the good economic polices and better management of the economy that created the conditions for a stronger rupee and thriving economy. Those conditions however, have been spoilt by a Judge.
The government does not have the expertise or experience to manage the financial affairs in these difficult times. We need a positive approach towards policy-making rather than political point-scoring. They must exercise more caution than just stating anything about the country, as people are not fool as he would like us to believe. He should apologise to the nation.
The performance of this government needs to improve in all spheres as at the moment they are only good at taking dictation from the Americans.
ZAFAR RAJA
London
IN his column of Oct 10, ‘Breaking the old mould’, Indian journalist Kuldip Nayar has proposed that the ties between his country and Pakistan should not depend on the solution of the Kashmir dispute. He writes:
“Both sides have wasted 60 long years and have fought three wars. They are nowhere nearer the Kashmir solution than they were in 1948. Had we reversed the order and facilitated trade and travel first, we would have generated enough goodwill to take up thorny problems like Kashmir.”
Interestingly, when discussing the border dispute between India and China in his column, “Bordering on progress,” this very year (Jan 18), Mr Nayar had adopted a diametrically opposite stand. A few examples are being cited.
“New Delhi will be committing…mistake by minimising the dispute (with China) for the sake of good relations.” However, he wants Islamabad to minimise the Kashmir issue.
“The unending rounds of talks between the officials of the two countries have not made China withdraw even an inch from the Indian territories it nibbled away at during the 1950s and occupied after the 1962 war.” Hasn’t India been doing precisely the same things about Kashmir with Pakistan?
“As the days went by, India accepted the status quo on the border and took steps to have economic and trade contracts with China. Incidentally, the same kind of arrangement was offered to Pakistan which it rejected… (saying) that unless the Kashmir issue was settled, there was no question of having business relations with India.” Look, who’s talking! Now, he wants Pakistan to do what he is saying was a mistake on the part of India vis-a-vis China.
“The aggression by China should be ‘a permanent piece of education’, as Nehru said, lest emotions should make us one day write off the occupation of Indian territories.” One must ask here, shouldn’t India’s aggression in Kashmir be a ‘permanent piece of education’ for us in Pakistan?
Therefore, before preaching something to others, the gentleman should first preach the same to his country as well and, equally importantly, act on it.
KHALID NAQSHBANDI
Karachi
THIS is with reference to the article ‘Saying what the US wants to hear’ (Oct 14) by M.J. Akbar. It missed the point that politics is controlled by economics.
When billions are received free you must serve the Big Brother who may destroy Pakistan’s economy without setting foot on the soil. No nuclear bomb or missile can save the economy.
Further, to treat India ‘as enemy’ approach must end if economic progress is desired.
Whatever deficiencies President Zardari has or had, he is on the right track to earn goodwill and faith of India, the fourth largest economy of the world, with the United States still being the largest and strongest.
In the meantime if internal, religious, educational, social and militancy problems can be minimised, a balanced approach to improve relations with these two democracies will ultimately lift Pakistan from economic backwardness, by trade and investments.
Pakistan must give in to earn some advantage. A weak economy cannot expect or achieve strong politics.
SAM BAIDYA
Toronto, Canada
A JOINT session of parliament began on Oct 13 with the recitation of the Holy Quran and ended without any further proceedings due to the death of Nasrulah Khan Bijarani.
For a session like this, the public exchequer suffered a loss of more than Rs2 million in terms of daily allowance of the members with no work done. The speaker, National Assembly, should declare non-admissibility of DA when the session ends without proceedings.
SHAHID SALIM
Karachi
This year’s Nobel laureate for literature, Jean-Marie Gustave Le Clézio, said during his interview with Swedish journalist Nina Lekander that there were others, such as Edouard Glissant from Martinique or Quratulain Hyder from India, who should have been given this prize.
“She (Quratulain Hyder) is an Indian, who writes in Urdu, but has translated her book ‘River of Fires’ into English herself. Read this book”.
It was in 1992 that I belonged to the group of a chosen few, who were asked by the Nobel Committee to propose a name for that year’s prize for literature.
I proposed Qurratulain Hyder’s name. But she wrote to me: “How can they judge me, as none of my books has appeared in the West”.
It seems that people like Le Clézio had known her and appreciated her contribution to literature. Today we don’t have anybody left, whom one could propose for Nobel prize for literature.
MUNIRUDDIN AHMED
Germany
PRIME Minister Gordon Brown has recently given a call to move away from the ‘unipolar’ diktat of the sole superpower. He said the direction of this movement must be towards mutually rewarding inter-dependence.
His speech — delivered at the Kennedy Memorial lecture at the Kennedy Library in Boston on April 18 — was woven round JFK’s affirmation in his 4th of July speech to the American people in 1962, saying that “today American people must learn to think intercontinentally.
“Acting alone by ourselves cannot establish justice throughout the world.
“We cannot ensure America’s domestic tranquillity; provide for its common defence; or promote its general welfare; or secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity.
“But joined with other free nations we can do all this and more.”
Moving on, Mr Brown said: “To recognise this is important. But simply to acknowledge that there is no ‘Britain only’ or ‘Europe only’ or ‘America only’ solutions to the global threats and challenges we face, or to say we are all internationalists now, will change nothing in itself.
“Instead, we must go much further; acknowledge that our common self-interest as nation states can be realised only by practical cooperation; that responsible sovereignty means the acceptable or clear obligation as well as the assertion of rights, while forcefully emphasising that global problems need global solutions”.
Mr Brown is advocating a clear move from a mindset of ‘New World Order’ to that of a ‘border transcending global society’.
In this context he proceeds to say, “and in the 18th and19th centuries nation states looked to the concept of the ‘balance of power’ for their security — and in the latter half of the 20th century, briefly, put their faith in the concept of mutually assured destruction — we in the midst of the complexities of the 21st century must recognise afresh the power of John Kennedy’s declaration of inter-dependence, and must firmly root our international system in the values we hold in common — shaping more than a new world order, creating instead a truly global society:
“ A global society no longer founded just on balancing competing interests but on building institutions that foster mutual interests because they are grounded in common values.
“A global society no longer just based on the power of states delineated by borders but on the aspirations of the people that transcend borders.”
While Mr Brown does — and broadly too — hint at the central role of the UN in the new architecture that he proposes, he should have — but unfortunately does not — shed light on the reasons of the United Nation having failed to fulfil the same promise when its charter is read with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 1948 which was so eminently cast to do.
Of course, the reasons for this failure were embedded, by and large, in the self-seeking agendas of the Big Five; and now expanded into the G-8 style of approaching things.
Indeed it is this mentality which will need to be changed, for 80 per cent of Mr Brown’s vision will have to be translated to apply to ground realities, mostly involving the developing world.
It would mean to lead and care with steadfast altruism 184 nations with their teeming millions teetering on the threshold of a civilised existence. I would suggest that Mr Brown and his G-8 partners must:
a. Set a palpable example of submitting unequivocally to the purposes, principles, provisions, procedures and the spirit of the UN Charter.
b. Timetable the operative provision of Article 33 of the Charter for dealing with international disputes with despatch.
c. Call for the mandatory requirement for all member-states to accept the jurisdiction of the ICJ.
d. Strengthen the Economic and Social Council to oversee through regional associations the colossal task of development through agencies like an unbridled World Bank and the IMF, WHO, FAO, ILO and WTO.
e. Put effective teeth into the upgraded and reorganised Human Rights Commission (now the Human Rights Council) extending its jurisdiction to look into matters of this nature within member-states.
f. Immediately bring alive the Disarmament Conference as practically supported by the Disarmament Commission. Provided also that under the aegis of the UN the Japanese idea of establishing a monitoring Register to see that all conventional arms move only on a state-to-state basis is implemented.
M.J.AS’AD
Karachi
You can also send letters to the Editor
Just send your message to the following address: letters@dawn.com
Make sure you include your full name, postal address, e-mail address, and in the case of Pakistan your day-time telephone number.
