|
| January 01, 2009 | Thursday | Muharram 03, 1430 |
Khyber operation
No end to confrontation
OTHER VOICES - Middle East Press
India must fight its own war
Bangladesh: a vote for reform
WHAT happens when — not if — terrorists strike India again? Is the world going to see a repeat of the scenarios in 2002 and in the aftermath of the Mumbai attack? There is a terrorist attack on some Indian city; within hours New Delhi blames Pakistan; Islamabad swears it is not involved. There is war talk, especially on the Indian side. The western media seems to encourage India to ‘teach Pakistan’ a lesson; then friendly governments work behind the scenes to counsel restraint. ‘Friendly governments’ are unlikely to be friendly this time.
SOMETHING spectacular happened in a small corner of the world on Monday. After two years of military-backed rule, a free, fair, incident-free election was held in Bangladesh, with decisive results: a record voter turnout routed the incumbent party in favour of a secular, progressive alliance.
IT was a deeply troubling year on most counts. The euphoria surrounding the February elections proved to be short-lived as the administration in Islamabad slipped into stasis and political manoeuvring overtook governance on the list of priorities. A dismayed nation could only watch as the government of the day floundered as it tried to cope with the myriad challenges facing the country. Asif Zardari’s PPP reneged on its pledge to restore the judges ousted by Gen Musharraf and the Muslim League led by the Sharif brothers tried to play the spoiler to the best of the party’s ability. The nation was ill served by this wrangling at a time when inflation was pushing millions more into poverty and the country’s image abroad was taking a battering. The calibre of those at the helm came to be questioned when it became all too apparent that things were getting worse, not better. In many ways, 2008 encapsulated the downfall of hope in a country that had suffered dictatorship and sham democracy since 1999 but was in ecstatic mode in February. One square meal a day was taken beyond the reach of the poorest and children were pulled out of schools because their lower-middle-class parents could no longer afford the fees.
Militancy wracked the country and suicide bombers shed innocent blood along with their own. But significant gains were achieved after Mr Musharraf relinquished the office he had clung on to for far too long. Pakistan’s military under Gen Kayani became single-minded in the fight against the Taliban, perhaps because it was not distracted by politics. The government too lent sharp focus to this clear and present danger, the enemy within that is tearing Pakistan apart. The militants were hit badly, in Bajaur in particular, and seemed to be on the retreat in some areas. They still act with impunity but are hitting soft targets for the most part, possibly out of desperation. There is no doubt that this government is committed to tackling the Taliban. The army too is ready. What is needed to make the stand against militancy unified is for the opposition to come on board in unequivocal fashion. The religious right is not the only problem. At least one mainstream party also needs to make its position clear.
As the new year dawns, the primary talking point will naturally be the ongoing tension in relations with India. For the time being, however, it seems that saner voices have prevailed and the clouds of war have lifted perceptibly. The country’s economy too is doing marginally better and it can only be hoped that it will stage a major recovery sooner than later. Despair will get us nowhere at this critical stage. We need to think positively, within the realm of realism, and our leaders must act in similar fashion.
AS with operations elsewhere, Operation Here I Come in Khyber Agency raises more questions than it answers. The one answer we do have is that the state has finally decided to act against militants threatening the convoys travelling on the Peshawar-Torkham highway laden with supplies for American and allied forces in Afghanistan. Tariq Hayat, administrator of the Khyber Agency, has identified two areas of focus: Jamrud, a stamping ground for the Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan, and Landi Kotal, a den of kidnappers, criminals and militants. In doing so the government hopes to clear a highway that will remain a vital supply route even if alternatives are found in Central Asia. Now to the questions. Has the government learned any lessons from other areas in northern Pakistan where it has unsuccessfully tried to use paramilitary forces to clear and hold areas against militants? The statement by Mr Hayat that “we will arrest militants and criminals, demolish their houses and hideouts” is admirable but doesn’t explain the government’s strategy for defeating clever, battle-hardened militants. However, working in the government’s favour in Khyber are reports which suggest that the militants’ presence in Jamrud and Landi Kotal is not as strong as in, say, Swat. Let us hope that the combination of lessons learned and lighter resistance will yield more success this time. But why has action only been promised in these two parts of Khyber Agency? What about Bara, where Mangal Bagh and his cohorts terrorise the local population and practise their own brand of vigilantism in the name of Islam?
The attacks on the convoys have admittedly put enormous pressure on the government, but surely this piecemeal, selective policy of taking on the militants will not yield any meaningful long-term results. Landi Kotal is a prime example of how local criminal elements, petty warlords and the Taliban mix readily. Excluding action against militants who currently do not pose a direct threat to the Americans, such as in Bara, does not mean they will not in the near future, while attacking militants who are focusing on the Americans will ensure they turn on Pakistanis. And, finally, does the government have the appetite to see the fight through to the bitter end? Mr Hayat has vowed not to talk to the militants and to continue the operation “till we achieve our objectives”. We hope he is right and that the operation will continue until all of Khyber is secure.
THE politics of confrontation has its uses: it helps divert attention from issues. Respect for the system before the party can take a backseat and stay there until the confrontation is fully played out. People, too, can amuse themselves with the media circus around, jockeying and jostling. But the latest bout of political wrestling in Punjab shows why confrontation defeats its purpose by hurting everyone involved.
This three-way fight is a direct result of the delicate balance of power in the province. Chief Minister Shahbaz Sharif and his team are after the city district governments and other local bodies headed by the PML-Q essentially to muster the support his government needs to survive without the PPP. The
Q-League mayors and other local representatives see their political careers coming to a premature end if they give in to official pressure, and Governor Salmaan Taseer and at least a section in the PPP view the clash between the two sides as a godsend opportunity for cobbling together some sort of an anti-Sharif alliance.
To win the argument, it appears that the three sides are not averse to indulging in half-truths and employing only partially valid legal and constitutional tools. While the Sharif camp exploits incomplete and selective audit reports to condemn local governments headed by rivals, the latter invoke a much-amended and quite loose Local Government Ordinance to protest interference and intervention by the government. Governor Taseer and his supporters, too, do not have the full force of law and constitution behind them to justify any machinations on their part. As their respective efforts to gain an upper hand intensify, the confrontation between the three parties is fast becoming a dead heat featuring desperate runners. But their competition threatens to derail democracy in the province and indeed at the centre. No matter who ends up winning, it will be a Pyrrhic victory, at the expense of the fragile democratic dispensation.
Ceasefire in tatters
The Pennisula
Israel’s Gaza offensive is spinning out of control on many fronts. The horrific TV images of dead and wounded Gazans are inflaming Arab public opinion and weakening Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas. From Lebanon to Iran, Israel’s adversaries used the assault to marshal crowds out onto the streets for noisy demonstrations. And among regional allies there was also discontent: Turkey’s prime minister, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, called the air assault a “crime against humanity”.
Hamas, which survived several past Israeli assassination sprees against its leaders and whose rule in Gaza has been absolute since it routed Abbas’ secular Fatah faction there in 2007, sounds undeterred. Hamas is in firm control and commands thousands of armed men. It is unlikely to be brought down by force, short of Israel reoccupying the territory.
The air strikes raised the prospect of an escalation of violence that could scuttle any hopes the incoming Obama administration harboured of forging an Israeli-Palestinian peace deal. There is little doubt, however, that if the situation escalates, it could hand yet another crisis to Obama, who will already be inheriting wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and an unstable situation in Pakistan. The … proposal to hold an Arab summit is meeting some resistance. Judging by past summits, Arab states are unlikely to fulfil popular aspirations, especially if that would bring them into conflict with Israel and US.—(Dec 29)
A year without Benazir
Khaleej Times
Benazir Bhutto’s assassination on Dec 27, last year, deprived Pakistan of a leader with a charismatic appeal at home and wide international recognition.
Rarely before in its history has the nation needed [a] leader of her calibre, vision and popular allegiance more than it does today to steer it from the gravest crises it is presently facing….
When she returned to Pakistan on Oct 18, 2007 after about eight years of exile, she received a magnificent reception from hundreds and thousands of ecstatic people … [S]he popped out of her vehicle on the fateful day to wave to the ecstatic crowd. She could not be faulted for doing that because public acclamation is the elixir that spurs charismatic leaders to pursue their mission with still greater zeal. In her death, and earlier in public speeches, Benazir has left some clear messages to her party and people in general, and in particular to her spouse who took up the gauntlet. One: the challenges posed by the dictator needed extraordinary courage, irrespective of personal risks. Two: the tide of democracy, independence of judiciary, rule of law and social justice could no longer be reversed. Three: the gravity of the problems could not be resolved by a single individual or party, and required a collective leadership to confront them squarely.
She even went to the extent of saying she would align with other national leaders, like Nawaz Sharif, to rule the country even if her party won [a] two-thirds majority in the election.—(Dec 27)
In 2002, following the terrorist attack on the Indian parliament building in December 2001, India massed troops on Pakistan’s border. As Pakistan also mobilised its troops, more than half a million men armed with the most lethal weapons were locked in a scary eyeball-to-eyeball confrontation for months along a border that stretched from the hot and humid Rann of Kutch marshes to Siachen’s icy heights. Gradually, tempers cooled. But we know now how an Indian general deployed his division beyond the red line in violation of the Indian general headquarters’ orders, and how this was detected not by the Indian high command but by the Americans with the help of satellite imagery.
The anxiety which America showed in 2002 to end the confrontation was for obvious reasons: the Taliban had just been defeated in November 2001, and Islamabad had started re-enacting its role as a front line ally. George Bush, Colin Powell, Donald Rumsfeld, Tony Blair and Hu Jintao were active behind the scenes and counselled restraint, and finally a thaw began. A.B. Vajpayee, the BJP leader who was then India’s prime minister and had rushed the troops to Pakistan’s borders, retraced his steps. In January 2004 he visited Islamabad and agreed to begin ‘a composite dialogue’.
The first two weeks of December this year were different, for the Americans and the world did not show the same anxiety which they did in 2002 to avoid a war. One only had to listen to the speeches made on Dec 1 when president-elect Barack Obama unveiled his cabinet team to realise the extent of anger against Pakistan among American leaders.
Obama briefly reviewed the world situation, spoke of his resolve to work for peace in the Middle East, referred to Afghanistan, but even the rhetorical and time-worn reference to America’s desire to see peaceful relations between Pakistan and India was missing. While India got full sympathy from Obama and Hillary Clinton on the Mumbai carnage, there was no mention of Pakistan at all as an ally in the war on terror. They had held Pakistan guilty.
Conclusion: when there is another terror attack in India, there will be no one to counsel restraint, and India most probably will be left to itself to think whether a military adventure against Pakistan will be worth its while. Ultimately it is Pakistan’s conventional strength, rather than nuclear deterrent, which India takes into account, for Indian generals know very well Pakistan will not give them a walkover. There will be a price to pay.
There is only one way in which Pakistan can tackle the aftermath of the next terror attack in India: Islamabad must genuinely convince the world of its innocence, because Pakistan itself is being cannibalised by terror. There is no need to do some ‘explaining’ to New Delhi because of its rigid attitude. We know, for instance, that the vast majority of the Samjhauta Express casualties were Pakistani, but New Delhi and the Indian media had begun blaming this country within hours of the attack on the train. The problem is basically with our diplomacy, for we have failed to present to the world our side of the picture — i.e. the truth.
It is Pakistan not India which has suffered hundreds of terror attacks, and the trauma suffered by the Indian people in the Mumbai attack pales in comparison with the dozens of greater tragedies the terrorists have inflicted on this country. The two attacks on Benazir’s processions, the firebombing of Islamabad Marriott and the blast at the Eid congregation to kill Sherpao come to mind immediately. The world knows this but the truth doesn’t sink in, thanks to the western media.
Asking Pakistan and India to cooperate is great naiveté. Given their adversarial relationship they are unlikely to cooperate, and the joint anti-terror mechanism agreed to at Havana between Pervez Musharraf and Manmohan Singh is a non-starter.
The next terrorist attack on Indian soil is merely a question of time. Pakistan’s diplomatic corps must be ready to face the storm on its own. Briefly, Pakistan must tell the world that India must fight its own war on terror. Pakistan is doing this on its own; why does New Delhi shirk its responsibility and take comfort in blaming Islamabad? India is like a crying baby which wants the whole house to itself. Why can’t it fight its own war on terror, instead of going on its knees and begging the world to rush to its help? When terrorists attack, Pakistan doesn’t cry.
“Two ladies” is the phrase commonly attached to the leaders of Bangladesh’s main political parties: Khaleda Zia of the Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP) and Sheikh Hasina of the Awami League – both women, one the widow of a former president, the other the daughter of Sheikh Mujib, leader of the independence movement and first prime minister of Bangladesh.
But lumping the leaders together and calling them the “two ladies” is not just misogynistic and patronising but seriously misleading. There is a real difference between the parties, one that is not only crucial to understanding the internal politics of Bangladesh, but also sheds light on the rise and fall of religious fundamentalism in the world’s second largest Muslim nation.
The BNP were at the helm of power in the last electoral cycle. During this time, Khaleda Zia promoted cronies to high positions of power, corrupted the courts with political appointments, and oversaw the theft of government funds on an unprecedented level. In 2007, the party orchestrated a coordinated effort to rig the elections, leading to the army’s intervention and two years of military-backed rule.
In this election, which was held on Monday with the results announced on Tuesday, the BNP allied itself with the Jamaat-i-Islami and conducted a campaign of fear-mongering, with slogans decrying the corruption of religious values and predicting a threat to Islam through foreign influence. By contrast, the Awami League ran a campaign that was purposefully secular and progressive. Though no stranger to allegations of corruption, the Awami League cleansed its party of much of the old guard. In the end, it campaigned on a platform of change, promising jobs and economic regeneration. The result was not only victory for the Awami League, but a near annihilation of the Jamaat-i-Islami.
There has been a lot of speculation of late about the direction — political and economic — Bangladesh will take. Will it succumb to Islamic fundamentalism, or will it remain a moderate Islamic country? Will it ever overcome the many obstacles to progress and turn the tide in its favour, or will it remain at the bottom of the charts and development indices, a nation on the brink of failure?
When I asked a prominent journalist why the Bangladeshi stock exchange hadn’t felt the effects of the global economic downturn, he said: “In order to be drunk, you first have to be invited to the party.” In this economic cycle — luckily, it turns out — Bangladesh wasn’t invited to the party. But the election results may mean the beginning of a new era of political reform and economic growth.
Bangladesh still has a long way to go. But after all the votes have been counted, this is what remains: in this poor country, where many people cannot read or write, where women are still subject to draconian social and economic realities, where natural disasters strike with brutal regularity, corruption and religious extremism were resolutely routed out.
People came by the millions to cast their votes because they knew that on this day, they would have their say. And speak they did, against a regime that had let them down once too many; against leaders who had refused to accept the responsibilities of their offices. Against all odds, Bangladesh is on the move.
The writer is the author of A Golden Age.
— The Guardian, London
