| December 23, 2008 | Tuesday | Zilhaj 24, 1429 |
To send a letter to the Editor
Click here
‘No first use’ and policymaking
Sindh deprived of production bonus
Soul searching needed
A bit of Rwanda?
Remembering the Quaid
Women’s rights
Cricket woes
Bird shooters
PM’s jaunts cost the nation Rs80m
Taxing farm incomes
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
THE Mumbai tragedy has prompted Dr Muhammad Ali Shaikh to write ‘The tragedy of the subcontinent’ (Dec 16), setting out a novel theory of cycles: “phases of disintegration and integration, separated by a process of annexation by a foreign power”.
He maintains that during the two cycles of disintegration the subcontinent is usually divided amongst several small independent states, which are mostly at war with each other, individually as well as collectively.
According to him, during the chaos of phase I the Ghoris and the Mughals and in phase II the British took advantage of disintegration and conquered the states one by one.
This cyclic theory, however, does not commensurate with historical perception as there was no such single politically integrated entity called the subcontinent. The ‘subcontinent’ is a geographical term used since the British came into arena for the present-day Pakistan, Bangladesh, Nepal, Bhutan, the Maldives and Sri Lanka.
Even the mainland (now India-Pakistan-Bangladesh) was never united as one country as the south (Deccan) remained independent, comprising several flourishing independent countries till annexed by Emperor Aurangzeb. The southern part of peninsula even during Ashoka (250 BC) was held by Chola, South Indian Tamil rulers of unknown antiquity.
The Ghoris were confined to northern parts of India, so were the Mughals till Emperor Akbar annexed Sindh and some of Deccan states. When the British East India Company took control of the subcontinent, 40 per cent of the land was held by about 560 ‘princely’ states with native rulers which had entered into treaty relations with the British.
These autonomous states were ruled by nawabs and rajas, who originally were imperial governors who took advantage of the centre’s weakness and proclaimed independence. Some states such as Kashmir, Hyderabad Deccan and Bhopal were even bigger than large countries of Europe.
Dr Shaikh’s assertion that forces of the subcontinent in spite of being numerically superior (1/5th of humankind) were not able to conquer foreign lands because of their inter-dissension is also not correct. China (Cathay) during its zenith was in a much better position, as it was not only numerically but also politically and economically strong, yet she did not come out of borders to subjugate other lands.
In fact, factors leading to acquisition and conquests are entirely different. It is not the numerical strength of a nation but it is economic pressure which pushes the nations to intrude into others’ areas of domain.
In India its people were contended as their needs were fulfilled. Therefore, there was no question of expansion. That is why they never tried to look outwards, eyeing foreign lands. The hordes coming from north were compelled by the economic hardships to look to the east.
This was the case with Genghis Khan, Tamerlane et al. Had Babur not been forced by his uncles/cousins, he would not have left Farghana and then Samarqand at all.
I also do not agree with Dr Shaikh that Mahmud Ghaznavi (971 – 1030) and Ahmed Shah Abdali (1725-1775) were leading small bands. Both of these sovereigns were empire builders, leading strong and most advanced armies of their times. It was not only weakness of the adversaries but it was invaders’ unrelenting vigour, superiority of arms and modern war tactics that made their conquest easy. The same was the position of the small British Isle, i.e. economic compulsions and new vigour which took them across the globe and made them a world power.
The circumstances prevailing in mediaeval times: the days of ‘empires’ and ‘kingdoms’ were entirely different from the contemporary ‘nation states’ whose borders are secured through various international covenants guaranteed by a world body called the United Nations.
The conditions under which Bangladesh proclaimed separation was quite different from the days when anyone having sheer strength could march in and change the course of an independent state.
Pakistan and India achieved independence through a constitutional method and not through hostilities and wars. The British left the subcontinent, accepting the desire of two communities for independence. I agree with M.J. As’ad (Dec 18) that ‘cycles’ are not divinely decreed and the mature and sensibly integrative behaviour on the part of leaders concerned can get the unresolved issues settled once for all.
MANZOOR H. KURESHI
Karachi
BEFORE analysing the likely effects of the off-the-cuff ‘no first use of nukes’ statement by President Zardari, one needs to define the theory of nuclear deterrence and maintaining an ambiguity regarding the use of the weapons.
Some recent episodes in decision making have served to expose the immaturity of the Pakistani polity. One needs to emphasise the importance of grooming the persons who are to be the president and the prime minister, the process of the delegation of powers, and the importance of institution-building.
The theory of deterrence was propagated in the early days of the Cold War in which the threat of mutual annihilation prevented them from taking overtly hostile actions. It was appropriately called MAD — Mutually Assured Destruction. There is disparity between Pakistan and India in conventional weapons, and a greater part of Pakistani weaponry is American-made. So we are dependent on the US for ammunition and spare parts.
Pakistan cannot afford a conventional or nuclear war. The nukes were acquired to avoid both. The nation has spent trillions of dollars in acquiring its nuclear capability.
The aim was that it would deter India from waging even a conventional war. Now a declaration by the President of Pakistan that we are not going to use it first has removed the ambiguity and the deterrence. Now India can talk of surgical strikes and the stupid idea of a limited war.
It was in that context that one argued for grooming the persons who are to be the president and the prime minister. They are to be told that they cannot be the master of everything. They cannot take unilateral decisions. They can complement the policy formulated by the experts and officials who have the expertise for that particular job: defence, economy, education, health, foreign relations, law, etc. A person becomes a leader when it masters the art of selling the policy formulated by the experts to the public and to the international community. In today’s specialised world personal whims of a leader have no place.
It is the time the state’s institutions are strengthened so that national decisions are taken after due process and in an organized manner. Policymaking must climb up the ladder and reach the high offices where the leaders should make the choice.
This way the leadership would avoid the embarrassment of retracting on its publicly stated statements: bringing ISI under Defence Ministry, no first use of nuclear weapon, sending the ISI Chief to India.
When Zardari or Gilani speaks, it’s the president or the prime minister who speaks: which means the nation speaks. They must know what to say and when to say.
TAHIR ZAMAN
Karachi
RECENTLY at a media workshop conducted by the Participatory Development Institute in Dadu, the PID programme officer, Ishaq Soomro, said that for the last 30 years the province of Sindh had been deprived of production bonus receivable from the petroleum companies and the federal government, which now amounts to Rs700 million.
Other speakers added that an agreement was made between the federal government and the Sindh government and, according to the provisions of that agreement, the federation and the private petroleum companies are bound to give production bonus to the Sindh government because minerals are found in huge quantity from different areas of the province.
The speakers highlighted the apathy of the elected representatives who have failed to raise voice in the assembly, due to which the rights of Sindh are being violated.
The production bonus is the right of Sindh. Therefore, the chief minister being the chief executive of the province should take up this issue at the coming meeting of the National Finance Commission so that these huge funds could be procured.
It is also proposed that these resources should be utilised exclusively in the areas from where minerals are being extracted.
By the way the districts of Badin, Sanghar, Dadu and Pano Aquil, from where gas and oil is found, are highly underdeveloped and need huge amount for development.
SHAFIQUE ANSARI
Dubai, UAE
THIS is in response to Mr Sririm’s letter, ‘Soul searching needed’ (Dec17). He asserts that soul searching on the part of Pakistan is required. Indeed I must say. But soul searching on the part of India is required even before Pakistan’s name crosses your mind.
India was the primary target of the Mumbai carnage, but sadly all that we can see on the part of Indians is an endless raving and ranting about Pakistan and no ‘soul searching’ on their part.
Mr Sririm goes on to say that there is serious inability within Pakistan to acknowledge the problems existing within. This is in contrast to what Pakistan’s response has been since the attacks.
Pakistan has offered full support to the investigations, there has been a crackdown on LeT, and we can always see our TV channels talking of continuing the peace process . On the other hand, we do not see any such measures taken on the part of the Indian government.
Has the writer tried to have a look at the convenient blindness that was shown on the part of India’s own politicians and the media? Can anybody count a single step taken by the Indian authorities to eliminate the existing terrorist outfits in India? Why has the whole Indian nation collectively turned deaf to what the terrorist from Nariman house had to say? He didn’t mention Pakistan. What he mentioned was excesses against Muslims in Kashmir and Gujarat. Has any soul searching been done on that front?
Another concern shown by the writer is the denial coming from Pakistani society. This denial is not coming because we fail to acknowledge the threats within. Rather it is in reaction to the incessant blames that were directly hurled at Pakistan without any proof, within the first day of the carnage, by the Indian media.
What country knows terrorism better than us? We are the ones who have done and suffered more on this war against terrorism than any other nation on the face of the earth. Still we get to hear things like “Pakistan’s inability to recognise internal threats”. Enlightening.
The bitter pill by Arundhati Roy in the Guardian also needs to be swallowed by our neighbours: “Through the endless hours of analysis and the endless op - ed essays, in India at least there has been very little mention of the elephants in the room: Kashmir, Gujarat and the demolition of the Babri Masjid. Instead we had retired diplomats and strategic experts debate the pros and cons of a war against Pakistan ....
“On November 25 newspapers reported that the ATS was investigating the high - profile VHP chief Pravin Togadia’s possible role in the Malegaon blasts. The next day, in an extraordinary twist of fate, Hemant Karkare was killed in the Mumbai attacks”
The Indian nation need not only act on the inherent instinct of blaming Pakistan but also try to stand up and face it. The Mumbai carnage was in response to state terrorism in Kashmir, the government - sponsored riots in Gujarat, etc. India also has internal, home - grown terrorists that need to be dealt with sternly.
Indian people need to ask their government that while Pakistan is being asked to do more and more, what has been done within India to put an end to the terrorists breeding in that country?
Pakistan may be marred by its own troubled history and internal contradictions but what country is not? Isn’t India also?
A PAKISTANI
Via e-mail
TO experience Rwanda, or Burundi, or Somalia, one doesn’t have to be there. Our politicians, ministers, MNAs, MPAs, advisers, special assistants and the rest of such assorted collection in the ruling party’s menagerie bring them right to your doorstep.
Karachi has more than its share of such ruling party stalwarts tooling around in their vehicles with mystifying number plates, a party and a national flag, or both party flags, on either fender, followed by a convey of police mobiles, or pick-ups laden with private armed guards. However, to see real life Rwandan type drama on the ground one had to be at the Sea View Beach in Karachi at 1pm on Dec 17 as I was, and where I had taken my grandson for horse and camel rides on the beach in the area near the Floating Ship restaurant.
There were three police mobiles and two SUVs, with tinted glasses and odd registration numbers like ‘Kanak 2’ on one in English and ‘Kanak 3’ in Urdu on the other, parked on the road, both had PPP and the national flag on the fenders. About 15 heavily armed police commandos in black T-shirts and trousers, with ‘Anti-Terrorist’ imprint on back, were milling around. There were also men in shalwar-kurta with weapons, including shotguns, in hand.
A group of six or more men in shalwar-kurta were joking, laughing and raucously making merry on the beach, they were clearly the focus of police security, and also had their own private guards. The group had one of the many photographers on the beach taking their pictures and would go ecstatic every time the camera clicked. All this at state expense!
A commando, noticing the incredulous look on my face, walked up and looking clearly embarrassed said they were just doing their duty. He said they were escorting a party of the chief minister’s guests, who was not with them, and the guests were on ‘tafrih,’ enjoying the sights in Karachi. He wasn’t sure who they were, or where they had come from. He said he was just doing his duty, and he and his colleagues felt diminished by such duty.
Beats Rwanda, any day!
S.KHALID HUSAIN
Karachi
THIS is apropos of the letter, ‘Remembering the Quaid’ (Dec 18). It is true that Benazir Bhutto will always be remembered as she gave her life for the country and fought for the welfare of the poor. But I also agree with Mr Salman that we should never forget the Quaid on his birthday as he was the founder of this nation.
It was great to see that the world paid tribute to Ms Bhutto by giving her a prestigious award, but our own government did not do anything of that kind.
Therefore, I request the government to acknowledge Ms Bhutto’s services by giving her a national award, as well as ask the nation to remember the Quaid and other leaders who have rendered great services.
MUNTAZIR MAHDI
Karachi
IN the letter, ‘Discrimination against women’ (Dec 13), Nauman Asghar writes about the status of women in Pakistan and, in the proess, criticises Muslim laws etc. But it is our hypocrisy that makes me sad more than does Mr Asghar’s letter.
He criticises our laws but Islam is the only religion that provided women some sense of security when they were used just for slavery.
It is our religion that asks our womenfolk to cover themselves when they go out of their homes so that they may be recognised as noble women and not be harassed. Our religion provides a woman the place of a mother, a sister and a wife.
On the other hand, I fail to understand why Mr Asghar can’t see women being exploited through portrayal on billboards, in magazines, etc.
If we were really serious about giving our women the status they deserve, we should rid of hypocrisy.
RAQIM HAQUE
Via email
NOW that the Indian Cricket Board has cancelled its tour of Pakistan and has also refused to play at a neutral venue, it would be better that the Pakistan government also adopted a strong line and severe all cricketing ties with India for an unlimited time and avoid playing against them in any tournament even at a neutral venue.
Also, they should not give clearance to IPL players to visit India to play in the IPL league scheduled for April 2009.
It is strange to see India call themselves a democratic country while they mix sports with politics. Why should our team or players even go to India when terrorist organisations like Shiv Sena and others hurl threats to their lives?
We now need to adopt a strong line against the double standard of the cricketing nations against Pakistan. On the one hand, they want India to convince other countries to tour India despite the Mumbai tragedy and on the other refuse to play Pakistan even at a neutral venue like the UAE.
MIRZA KARAMAT BAIG
Toronto
I am a resident of Badar Commercial Area, DHA, Karachi. This area is infected by wild pigeons. They are always searching for places to make nests.
Most of the apartments have put mesh wire in balcony, but still their number is multiplying.
These pigeons have spoiled all exterior of buildings by their droppings.
We have bird shooters at airports. What DHA needs is bird shooters for Badar Commercial Area.
M. ALI KHAN
Karachi
AS per facts presented before the National Assembly by the foreign minister and reported in Dawn (Dec 19), the prime minister’s five foreign visits undertaken in just four months has cost the nation’s exchequer a stupendous sum of Rs80 million. According to details, on each visit the number of people in the entourage who enjoyed cost-free excision was ranging from 50 to 80.
When the prime minister took the oath of the office, he declared various austerity measures to be followed in government offices and by the public representatives. What become of those tall promises? At the time when country was passing through so much of serious economic crisis which forced it to beg assistance, from the friends and the IMF, spending huge public money on foreign trips taking hanger-on along is sheer criminal waste.
I request the president and the prime minister to visit foreign lands only when it is essentially required from national-interest point of view and in future show more circumspection in selecting minimum number of team to accompany the delegation. This is the only way to avoid criticism and also save taxpayers’ money from being wasted on sycophants and to be utilised for the more exalted cause of social services.
S. SHAHNAWAZ SHAH
Hyderabad
THIS is apropos of Anwar Syed’s article, ‘Taxing farm incomes’ (Dec 14). The writer seems to be unaware of the agricultural statistics of Pakistan as he ignores the basic knowledge of economic theory related to the determination of prices of agricultural commodities.
The fact is that 90 per cent of the cultivated area belongs to small farmers holding about one 1 to 12 acres and five per cent hold not more than 25 acres. The remaining five per cent of the farming community holds above 50 to 100 acres of the cultivated area.
Now, I calculate and analyse the cost income per acre of the most lucrative and profitable major four crops being cultivated in Punjab and Sindh.I take an example of (i) wheat (ii) cotton (iii) sugarcane and (iv) rice during 2007-2008:
Income Cost Margin
Rs Rs Rs
Wheat 25000 20000 5000
Cotton 30000 20000 10000
Sugarcane 56000 40000 16000
Rice 20000 10000 10000
As per Tenancy Act, half of the total production goes to the cultivators who cultivate and look after the crops of the landlords.
In this way the holder of 100 acres gets production for 50 acres and the holder of 50 acres will get production for 25 acres. Thus, the profit margin per year for the above crops will be: for wheat Rs250,000, for cotton Rs500,000, for sugarcane Rs800,000, for rice Rs500,000.
It can be calculated that for 25 acres, the margin will be half of the above-mentioned profit margins. The figures of the highest group of the landlords show that they get an annual income of Rs800,000 in case of only sugarcane whereas a bureaucrat getting Rs70,000 per month gets more than the income of Rs800,000 a year or a panwala who earns about Rs3,000 per day or about Rs90,000 per month or about Rs1000,000 per annum.
These figures indicate the economic position of the highest class of landlords or zamindars who have always been targeted by those thinkers and writers who do not know the factual economic position of the landlord and want to put more financial burden on themim so that the treasures of the government can be expanded for spending lavishly on non-development affairs.
What will be the economic position of other small holders of the land whose economic position is very poor and who are affected by the present-day price rise and who cannot educate their children properly in the manner the urban people educate their children, etc.
This is why rural people remain deprived of good education, with the result that they enjoy little or no opportunities and seldom get good jobs in towns and cities. Besides, their children cannot compete with the children reared under the urban system of education and hence rely on poor jobs.
It is, therefore, suggested that instead of levying taxes on the farming communities the areas of levying taxation may be found in property and estate holdings and bank accounts, shopping centres, high fee charging private schools, colleges and universities, etc.
DR ALI AKBAR DHAKAN
Chairman, Sindh Development Foundation
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.
