|
| December 24, 2008 | Wednesday | Zilhaj 25, 1429 |
Pak-India tension
Gwadar and the Baloch cause
OTHER VOICES - European Press
Nothing to gain from war
Problems for Tata
LATELY there has been high posturing between India and Pakistan about who is ultimately responsible for the Mumbai carnage. While New Delhi seems to have convinced the world that the perpetrators of this insane terrorist activity were Pakistanis, it has provided little proof to the Pakistan government in support of its allegations.
TATA may have agreed to pump millions into Jaguar Land Rover, but the Indian conglomerate has problems nearer home as it struggles to deal with the world economic downturn.
THAT, at least until the time of writing, there was no loss of life is perhaps the only redeeming feature of the Taliban’s attack on three schools in Peshawar on Monday. There were no casualties because there were no students. Maybe this was just a coincidence. Otherwise, given the Taliban frame of mind, the brutality that has characterised their movement and the cold-bloodedness they have shown while spreading their ‘mission’, they couldn’t have cared less whether the attacks killed any students. On this occasion, apart from targeting a girls’ school, they attacked two boys’ school ostensibly because their medium of instruction was English. As their record shows they had so far targeted girls’ schools where English was not the medium of instruction — like those in Fata, Swat and many ‘settled districts’. On Monday they did so in the NWFP’s capital city, and one can rest assured that this is not going to be the last such attack, for the Taliban continue to wage war not only on the state of Pakistan but also on society — on all sane minds, on all noble concepts and on those values which led to the founding of Pakistan.
Pakistan was not created by and for bigots. The men who dreamed of it and the men who gave practical shape to it were liberal in their philosophy and dedicated to what is one of Islam’s cardinal principles — tolerance. That such a country should be under attack from semi-literate bigots, some of them men without character and fighting as mercenaries for the highest bidder, is one of Pakistan’s tragedies. And that at one point they were dancing to the tune of Pakistan’s security services is clearly a nightmare for the government today.
At the same time one is shocked by the silence some of Pakistan’s religious parties are maintaining on the shedding of innocent blood by the militants. Can mass murder be forgiven because the criminal takes cover behind a religious slogan and claims to fight for the enforcement of the Sharia? The subcontinent has produced some great religious divines and scholars but none of them advocated war on innocent civilians to establish an Islamic order. It is a pity that parties owing allegiance to these intellectual giants should keep mum and thus indirectly abet in the Taliban’s criminality. In fact, by keeping mum these parties are encouraging chaos and making the job of Pakistan’s foreign enemies easier. The Taliban cannot be crushed by force alone. Society and all its liberal sections should stand up to the militants and save Pakistan from becoming what Afghanistan was under the Taliban.
A MONTH since the Mumbai attacks, tension between India and Pakistan is not abating. While the war hysteria drummed up in the media on both sides has subsided, it would be a mistake to write off the possibility of conflict. In fact, with two of the world’s largest armies on both sides of the border, conflict is always a possibility — the key is to minimise that possibility at all times. At the moment a dangerous stalemate seems to be developing: India wants Pakistan to act against militants on the basis of circumstantial and political evidence that has convinced the international court of public opinion; Pakistan is demanding proof that will stand up in a court of law. The Pakistani position has some merit; after all, convictions on the basis of scanty or faulty evidence are often overturned by the superior judiciary on appeal. Moreover, Ajmal Kasab’s confessions while in police custody cannot be used in even Indian courts because of laws that prohibit the use of statements that may have been elicited under coercion.
The two countries must find a middle ground however. The Mumbai attacks underlined the need for inter-state cooperation on anti-terrorism measures. The subject is part of the eight baskets of the five-year-old composite dialogue, now put on hold by India. A joint framework for dealing with terrorism cases such as Mumbai can address the legal, technical and political issues that currently inhibit cooperation. India should reconsider its stance on the composite dialogue and both countries must work with more urgency to develop an anti-terrorism framework. For its part, Pakistan must understand that a purely legalistic, technical response to the Mumbai attacks will not wash. Nor will superficial measures against the Jamaatud Dawa and affiliated groups impress the outside world, particularly India and the US. There are two distinct issues here: one, to find and prosecute all those who may have been involved in the Mumbai attacks; two, to uproot the jihadi networks that nurtured the individuals responsible. A firm effort by the Pakistan state to address the latter issue will go some way to reducing the tension on our eastern border, and buy time for India and Pakistan to find a way of bringing those involved in the Mumbai attacks to justice. Failing that, we will remain in dangerous uncharted territory. Memories of past Indian restraint will push its government to do something more this time; national pride may force Pakistan to retaliate. The losers will be the people of both countries.
IT was amid some controversy about who should have management rights over it that the country’s third deep-sea port became fully functional at Gwadar the other day. Being the first outside Sindh — outside Karachi, to be precise — it is expected to encourage considerable economic activity and bring in employment opportunities for the people of Balochistan who have for long been complaining, and justifiably so, of being at the wrong end of most federal policies. Speeches delivered at the inaugural ceremony by Federal Minister Nabil Gabol and Chief Minister Aslam Raisani made no bones about the right of the locals to make the most of the opportunities that the port is likely to generate. There has also been talk of a revision of the management agreement with the Port of Singapore Authority International and, if it comes to that, even its cancellation and the transfer of such rights to the provincial government. Discounting the rhetoric that was perhaps part of the two speeches, coming as they did against a background of political and financial grievances of a federating unit against the centre, the decision-makers would not hurt anybody by taking into account two basic facts before words are converted into actions. One, running a port is a massive operation that needs technical expertise as much as political will; only more. Two, port cities worldwide attract workforce from across the land purely for economic reasons.
It is only natural that Balochistan will have certain apprehensions after years of exploitation, but paranoia will not help. That the province and its inhabitants deserve to get their due share not just in the Gwadar operations, but in respect of all Baloch resources is not under debate; and cannot be. But the technicality of port operations and the need for skilled labour are realities that cannot be ignored; and shouldn’t be. While such issues will take some time to be settled, the authorities should focus on improving the road infrastructure to facilitate the distribution of goods from the port onwards. In the absence of a durable network, the duration and cost of transportation will work against the economics of the operation which will be good neither for Balochistan nor for the rest of Pakistan.
Financial crisis shows bank regulation is broken
The Daily Telegraph
IT is 15 months since the collapse of Northern Rock started the dominoes falling and they are still clattering down. Yesterday, a man with a ringside seat at that and subsequent banking crises, Sir John Gieve, the deputy governor of the Bank of England, offered his assessment of what caused the train wreck.
His remarks, in a BBC interview, were remarkably candid, but far from encouraging. The abiding impression left by Sir John was that the Bank, along with the other regulatory bodies — the Financial Services Authority (FSA) and the Treasury — were little more than bemused onlookers at the biggest financial crash in memory which has, in turn, spawned the deepest economic recession in a generation.
Sir John said the Bank was aware that “crazy borrowing” was taking place and that house and other asset prices were rising unsustainably as a consequence. The problem, according to the deputy governor, was that the Bank did not appreciate the sheer scale of the problem or the impact it would have. That really is not good enough.
The Bank’s own Financial Stability Report warned two years before the crisis broke that a dangerous funding gap was opening between what the banks were lending in mortgages and what they held on deposit from savers. It was this gap that brought Northern Rock down and subsequently led to the near-collapse of the entire banking sector. So why didn’t the Bank act on the warning it had sounded? Why did the FSA, which is supposed to keep a close eye on day-to-day banking activity, not see the danger signs? Why wasn’t the Treasury knocking their heads together? We have had no satisfactory answer to any of these questions, either from Sir John or anyone else.
It is now clear that the tripartite regulatory regime for British banks, created by Gordon Brown in 1997, has failed catastrophically at its first real test. Yet the structure is still in place, as are, to a great extent, the people. They may have behaved like rabbits in the headlamps, yet that does not, it seems, preclude them from remaining in charge. We have already argued for a new regulatory structure that is both quicker on its feet and carries more authority than the current cumbersome arrangement, which simply has too many hands on the wheel — as illustrated by the orgy of buck-passing.
Sir John calls for more sophisticated tools of economic management than the ‘blunt instrument’ of interest rates. That makes sense — so why isn’t it happening? It is bad enough that our financial regulators have shown themselves to be powerless to control events. That they appear in no hurry to take remedial action to ensure this cannot happen again is unacceptable. — (Dec 22)
India has also kept Pakistan away from the investigations although Pakistan has reiterated its commitment to fighting terrorism within and outside its borders. There is evidence of this since elections last February. The acrimony has led to a sharp escalation of tensions with some talking about the possibility of yet another war between India and Pakistan. It is important that they maintain silence before this gains momentum.
The main source of provocation on the part of India so far is External Affairs Minister Pranab Mukherjee and the Congress leadership including Mrs Sonia Gandhi. Mukherjee has repeatedly warned the Pakistani leadership that India reserves the right to use all options against Pakistan if its demands for closing down alleged terrorist training camps inside Pakistan and handing over wanted persons to India on terrorism charges are not met soon.
Political analysts know that the ruling Congress and its political allies need to make such public statements in order to prevent the Indian nationalist vote bank from falling into the hands of the opposition Bharatiya Janata Party and other regional parties which are threatening the ruling coalition’s victory at general elections next year.
In contrast, the Pakistani president, prime minister and foreign minister have been most restrained in their response. They have not only downplayed India’s threatening statements but also repeatedly extended the offer of cooperation to India in investigating the tragic Mumbai incident. The Pakistan government acted quickly in clamping down on the Jamaatud Dawa and investigating its leaders for possible involvement in activities harmful to Pakistan’s national interests.
If there were any guarantee that such hostile posturing would not lead to anything dangerous on the battleground, then this could have been enjoyed as the background to an interesting tug of war between the Congress and BJP at the next Indian election, or the ongoing point-making tussle between the PPP and PML-N.
However, the hardened attitude of the Indian leaders, to which some hawkish Pakistanis outside the government responded in an irresponsible manner, seems to have crossed the threshold of being mere public statements for local consumption. Mr Mukherjee’s briefing to foreign envoys in New Delhi and Pakistan’s air exercises in Lahore on Monday are a cause of much worry for those who want peace to remain the guiding principle in settling outstanding issues between the two regional nuclear powers.
At this sensitive time any irresponsible statement, activity or miscalculation can lead to an irreversible disaster which both countries must try very hard to avoid at all cost. Although neither India nor Pakistan can afford to engage in a war of such dangerous proportions as threatens its borders today, it will be India which will suffer more from such a misadventure because of a number of tactical advantages in favour of Pakistan.
In three previous wars with India, Pakistan had the disadvantage of defending two borders, one on the eastern front in West Pakistan and the other in the former East Pakistan. This involved a huge logistical military operation which is no longer a necessity for Pakistan.
Unlike past wars, the leadership of Pakistan today is elected and in control of its institutions. Pakistan is not internationally isolated. Pakistan’s army is battle-hardened after months of continuous engagement with militants along the Pakistan-Afghan border; and in a strange paradoxical way the tribal militants have expressed support for the military in the event of a war with India.
These are strong combinations which should make the Indian military hierarchy think twice before assuring the Indian government that they can win a war.
Another important factor which was missing previously is the willingness of the Pakistani people to engage in a war with India if circumstances force them in that undesirable direction. In 1948, 1965 and 1971 the people of what is Pakistan today never really participated in a war with India. The most they did was listen to Radio Pakistan and pray for the glory of their soldiers. This time around they are so much part of the battle preparations, because of the frequent terrorist bombings and hardship they endure on an almost daily basis, that they are ready for a debacle anytime if it were to come to war.
A telephonic survey of households in Lahore, Karachi and Rawalpindi carried out during the last Eidul Adha revealed that ordinary Pakistanis, who have been witness to earthquakes, natural disasters, long hours of load-shedding, escalating commodity prices and utility bills, rising unemployment and the breakdown of essential services are prepared for anything worse.
In the survey, mothers of unemployed young adults said that they would welcome a war because it would decide once and for all who would live and who would die. An old man of 70 said he was dying anyway and would not mind taking someone from across the border with him to the grave. A young man stated that he was waging a daily war for survival and at least during a real war Pakistan could stand united as one nation.
With such a mentality where the entire nation has a suicidal attitude towards life and where bombs are exploding indiscriminately anyway, there is very little an aggressor can achieve in terms of military objectives. If anything, a war might well bring Pakistanis together under the green flag to stand firmly behind a democratically elected government. India will have much to lose by putting at stake its rapid economic development and foreign direct investment. A war will cause disproportionate damage to its infrastructure which might take years to repair.
It would be therefore wise for the Indian leadership to recognise that victory lies in cooperating with Pakistan to identify the common enemy and obtain results without inflicting colossal collateral damage on the people of both countries. Wars do not produce winners.
According to reports in India, the group is planning to raise more than Rs150bn ($3bn) as it tries to cope with the collapse of some of its core businesses and looks for ways to salvage acquisitions such as the $2.3bn Ford marques and Corus, the British steelmaker, bought for GBP6.7bn nearly two years ago.
The $3bn is on top of $2.76bn it banked last month from the sale of its stake in telecom company Tata Teleservices.
The reports have led to speculation that not all is well in the Tata empire.
“Until last year the Tata Group was cash-rich, but after borrowing heavily for acquisitions abroad even its flagship companies, such as Tata Steel and Tata Motors, are now under tremendous pressure thanks to the fall in demand for their products,” a Mumbai-based business analyst said. “Tata Motors, for instance, is the country’s largest commercial vehicle manufacturer but is in serious trouble as demand for trucks has come down by almost 60 per cent.”
Tata Motors needs to repay by next June a $3bn bridge loan which financed the purchase of Jaguar Land Rover and its initial working capital requirement. It held a $1bn rights issues earlier this year and has tried to raise cash through public deposits.A car analyst with a Mumbai securities firm added: “There’s no doubt Tata Motors is in a tight spot. That’s why any fiscal package from the UK government to bail out Jaguar will go a long way in meeting the urgent working capital requirement.”
Debasis Ray, a Tata Motors spokesman, declined to comment on reports that the company is seeking funds for its domestic operations as well as to invest in Jaguar Land Rover.
New Delhi has unveiled a fiscal package to boost domestic demand, but the Tata Group wants the government to do more. Tata Motors managing director Ravi Kant complained to the Times of India that the government’s fiscal package is “just too small”.
“In this kind of situation, the government should go for a big-bang approach,” he said. “People who want to buy commercial vehicles are not being able to do so without help.”
Tata Motors’ much-touted Nano “people’s car” is also running well behind schedule.
—The Guardian, London
