THERE is a tendency on the part of many in Pakistan to gloat over India’s misfortunes. The same is true in India where Pakistan’s problems are noted with some satisfaction by many segments of the population including certain influential people amongst the intelligentsia.

This is unfortunate since both countries would benefit by positive developments on the side across the border from them.

I have suggested in these columns on several occasions that Pakistan, being the smaller economy, would gain from the strength of the Indian economy if the two countries could shed their mutual suspicions and open up trade to commerce and their borders to the flow of people. It is in this context that I will look at the latest economic news from India suggesting that that country has also been severely hit by the ongoing global financial crisis.

A few months ago, there was confidence in India shared by officials responsible for the making of public policy as well as by managers in the private sector that India was on its way to climbing up the growth trajectory in the same manner as China. The latter had gone from backwardness to becoming a global economic powerhouse. As one commentator wrote, it seemed that “the Indian century had arrived; growth rates stubbornly stuck at 3.5 per cent for decades were forgotten”. That seems a distant dream now. The government has revised the growth rate for 2009 to 7.1 per cent, the slowest in six years. Other analysts are even less confident. Citigroup expects the rate of growth in 2010 to be only 5.5 per cent, increasing to 6.2 per cent in 2011.

This may appear to be satisfactory given growth rates in the half century after independence when India was stuck at what some Indian economists called the “Hindu rate of growth”. But there was an expectation of a fundamental change in the structure of the economy which would allow the latter to grow at rates achieved by China over a period of 25 years. In the three years before the current downturn, the Indian economy had grown at an annual average of close to nine per cent. This meant an increase in average per capita income of almost eight per cent a year. The large Indian middle class had begun to show signs of prosperity. This class will be seriously affected by the way the downturn is being felt in the economy.

Modern industry has suffered the most followed by the sector of information technologies. These two sectors of the Indian economy along with modern health services were expected to take India towards sustained growth and modernisation. They were expected to help the Indians carve out a large slice for themselves in the global economy. Those ambitions have been checked.

Indian industrial production fell by two per cent in December, the second monthly decline in the last quarter of 2008. Textiles and automobiles are the two most affected sub-sectors within the industry. Both had done well in recent years because of exports. India had been successful in carving out niches for itself in these two relatively crowded parts of the global economy. The IT sector has also been seriously affected.

What is particularly worrying for India is the loss of jobs in the modern sector. More than half a million people were laid off in the final quarter of last year. The rate of job loss is expected to increase in the coming months. This is unfortunate for the long-term prospects of the economy. There was the expectation shared by policymakers as well as the academia that job creation in the economy’s modern sectors would relieve pressure on the countryside where, despite a relatively high rate of urbanisation, most Indians continue to live.

This is the first time that India is experiencing a major downturn in the modern part of its economy accompanied by a loss of jobs. Unlike the situation in China where the people laid off by modern sectors are returning to the countryside, such back-migration is not likely to occur in India. Consequently, there will be greater pressure on the urban areas, in particular on the country’s major cities. This will further deteriorate the social situation in India’s large cities that was so vividly portrayed by the Oscar-winning movie Slumdog Millionaire.

How is the government reacting to the worsening economic situation? Not unlike the circumstances that have dictated public policy response in Pakistan, the Indians also don’t have the fiscal elbow room that would justify the kind of stimulatory route taken by China. Beijing is relying on an economic stimulation programme valued at close to $600bn to revive the economy. New Delhi has taken some steps to pump public money into the economy but its efforts are seriously constrained by the large fiscal deficit that already cramps government activity.

The government’s fiscal target for 2009 was an ambitious one. It had hoped to bring it down to 2.5 per cent of GDP. It is now expected to be 7.5 per cent; possibly higher. It could reach 9.5 per cent. Such an increase will have inflationary consequences. Inflation had climbed to 12 per cent in 2008 but was halved in recent months largely on account of the sharp decline in oil and other commodity prices. But a large fiscal deficit, if financed by borrowing from the central bank, would introduce another type of pressure on prices.

One factor helps India make adjustments. This is also the case in Pakistan. Both countries resisted the pressure from the world at large to completely open up their economies. This advice was taken to some extent but the economies were not as exposed to the outside as is the case in East Asia. One result of this is that the full pressure of the negative side of globalisation has not been felt by these countries. The shocks delivered by the economic downturn in the United States, Europe and Japan have been felt but not to the extent of their impact on the more open economies of East Asia.

Does this mean that once the current crisis has passed both India and Pakistan should selectively open their economies to outside influences? The answer to this question will come but later when the world gets fully engaged with analysing the causes and consequences of the crisis. This exercise is likely to begin with the meeting of the G20 group of countries scheduled to be held in London in early April.

BRITAIN must embrace nuclear power if it is to meet its commitments on climate change, four of the country’s leading environmentalists — who spent much of their lives opposing atomic energy — have warned.

The one-time opponents of nuclear power, who include the former head of Greenpeace, have told The Independent that they have now changed their minds over atomic energy because of the urgent need to curb emissions of carbon dioxide. They all take the view that the building of nuclear power stations is now imperative and that to delay the process with time-consuming public enquiries and legal challenges would seriously undermine Britain’s promise to cut its carbon emissions by 80 per cent by 2050.

The volte-face has come at a time when the government has lifted its self-imposed moratorium on the construction of the next generation of nuclear power stations and is actively seeking public support in the selection of the strategically important sites where they will be built by 2025.

The intervention is important as it is the first time that senior environmental campaigners have broken cover and publicly backed nuclear power. It will be a welcome boost to the government, which is expecting strong protests about the new generation of nuclear power stations at the planning stage.

The four leading environmentalists who are now lobbying in favour of nuclear power are Stephen Tindale, former director of Greenpeace, Lord Chris Smith of Finsbury, the chairman of the Environment Agency, Mark Lynas, author of the Royal Society’s science book of the year, and Chris Goodall, a Green Party activist and prospective parliamentary candidate.

Mr Tindale, who ran Greenpeace for five years until he resigned in 2005, has taken a vehemently anti-nuclear stance throughout his career as an environmentalist. “My position was necessarily that nuclear power was wrong, partly for the pollution and nuclear waste reasons but primarily because of the risk of proliferation of nuclear weapons,” Mr Tindale said.

“My change of mind wasn’t sudden, but gradual over the past four years. But the key moment when I thought that we needed to be extremely serious was when it was reported that the permafrost in Siberia was melting massively, giving up methane, which is a very serious problem for the world,” he said.

“It was kind of like a religious conversion. Being anti-nuclear was an essential part of being an environmentalist for a long time but now that I am talking to a number of environmentalists about this, it’s actually quite widespread this view that nuclear power is not ideal but it’s better than climate change,” he added.

None of the four was in favour of nuclear power a decade ago, but recent scientific evidence of just how severe climate change may become as a result of the burning of oil, gas and coal in conventional power stations has transformed their views.

“The issue that has primarily changed my mind is the absolute imperative of reducing carbon dioxide emissions. Fifteen years ago we knew less about climate change. We knew it was likely to happen, we didn’t quite realise how fast,” said Lord Smith, who described himself as a long-time sceptic regarding nuclear power.

“What’s happened is that we’ve woken up to the very serious nature of the climate-change problem, the essential task of reducing carbon dioxide emissions and the need to decarbonise electricity production over the course of the next 20 to 30 years,” he said.

Renewable sources of energy, such as wind, wave and solar power, are still necessary in the fight against global warming, but achieving low-carbon electricity generation is far more difficult without nuclear power, Lord Smith said.

Mark Lynas said that his change of mind was also a gradual affair born out of the need to do something concrete to counter the growing emissions of carbon dioxide created by producing electricity from the burning of fossil fuels.

“I have been standardly anti-nuclear throughout most of my environmental career. I certainly assumed that the standard mantra about it being dirty, dangerous and unnecessary was correct,” he said.

“The thing that initially pushed me was seeing how long and difficult the road to going to 100 per cent renewable economy would be, and realising that if we really are serious about tackling global warming in the next decade or two then we certainly need to consider a new generation of nuclear power stations.”

The long moratorium on building nuclear power plants in Britain came about largely because of intense lobbying by environmentalists in the 1970s and 1980s — a campaign that may have caused more harm than good, Mr Lynas said.

“In retrospect, it will come to be seen as an enormous mistake for which the Earth’s climate is now paying the price. To give an example, the environmentalists stopped a nuclear plant in Austria from being switched on, a colossal waste of money, and instead [Austria] built two coal plants,” he said.

The four will now join the ranks of those like Sir David King, the former chief scientific adviser to the government.

— © The Independent

Yeh fasl-i-gul keh jise nafroton ne seencha hay/ Agar phalee to shararon kay phool lai gee/ Na phal sakee to nai fasl-i-gul kay aane tak/ Zameer-i-arz may ik zehr ghol jai gee

— Sahir Ludhianvi

(This crop that has been sown with hatred/ If it grows, it will bloom flowers of fire/ If it fails to grow, till the sowing of a new crop/ It will make the heart of the soil poisonous.)

OVER a dozen militant groups of diverse geographical backgrounds are united in their aim to bring down state and society in Pakistan.

Unfortunately, the impression one gets from the corridors of power is that the wielders of authority have been completely nonplussed.

Distressingly, the issue is oversimplified as the theory is propagated of the involvement of a foreign hand in fomenting militancy in Pakistan. Does this oversimplification serve any purpose?

When President Asif Ali Zardari talked to an American television channel some time ago, he probably did not know how close he was to the truth about the insurgency in large swathes of the country. But still he fell short of completing the picture of the monster that has been eating into the vitals of Pakistan. “We have weaknesses and they [the Taliban] are taking advantage of that weakness,” Zardari told CBS in an interview. What are the weaknesses? How and who reared them in our backyard while the whole state apparatus looked the other way? These questions demand clear answers; mere half-confessions will lead us nowhere.

Some circles say that a small but well-entrenched part of the Pakistani establishment still looks upon the Mujahideen and their Taliban successors as Pakistan’s protectors. Consciously or subconsciously, they defend them as a strategic asset. These elements are remnants of the legacy of their Afghan war mentors — the very people who dreamt of gaining strategic depth in Afghanistan through a leadership like the Taliban’s to counter perceived Indian hegemony in the region and defend the western border against danger.

Former federal minister Sheikh Rashid on a visit to Peshawar last year admitted that he would not object to the Taliban if they brought with them a viable system of governance. Prisoners of their own jihadi past, many retired civil servants and military officials enjoyed a monopoly over security issues and are now constantly being invited to talk shows and seminars to impose their analysis in which their support for the militants’ standpoint is implicit.

A sordid tale to illustrate this point follows. During a heated debate on the Fata situation at the Area Study Centre of the University of Peshawar, former ISI head Gen (retd) Asad Durrani, after being cornered by discussants, suddenly said: “Leave all this discussion, let me ask the audience whether they want the Taliban to win or the US? Just raise your hand.” His words created a ruckus with many taken aback.

The root of the problem lies in the past when a network of intelligence agencies was set up to indoctrinate young and old alike during the days of the Afghan jihad. Lured by Saudi riyals, Kuwaiti dinars and US dollars, jihadists were brought in from all corners of the world to be trained physically and psychologically. Political leaders of religious parties prospered through contacts with state and non-state elements. Rubbing shoulders with mighty generals, jihad for them became an enterprise. Hence small evils were assembled to raise a jihadi industry aimed at the larger evil, the USSR.

Little did elements in the Pakistani establishment realise that while their efforts could win them the Afghan war, the frenzy of jihad would be directed elsewhere once the struggle against the Soviet Union was over. Pakistan’s civil and military establishment had opened ‘industries of indoctrination’ to produce jihadis at a mass level in order to achieve what it saw as strategic depth in Afghanistan. However, when the jihad in Afghanistan was nearing its end, many in the civil and military establishment had become more jihadist than the products of their policy. A new twist was given to the philosophy of ‘charity begins at home’ as jihadis and their ideologues turned on Pakistan whose government in their view was too pro-US and civil society too western in its outlook.

Today, the USSR does not exist anymore but jihadi elements have permeated the state apparatus and society in Pakistan to such an extent that they are now an integral part of them. A spirited jihadi school of thought has a strong influence on every sphere of life including the media and mainstream political parties. As the late Benazir Bhutto said, society has been “de-intellectualised”, with dissenting voices being silenced and the more outspoken being chased away.

It is also in this situation that indoctrination and education have become entangled. There appears to be no difference between students of universities and madressahs. Both churn out militancy-minded individuals. It is difficult to tell the mentor from the protégé because the process of indoctrination affects not only the target group but also the indoctrinators.

This complication is further weakening the resolve of anti-militant forces. In primitive societies, warriors would never be allowed to interact with civil society without going through a series of rituals at a distance from the population. The wisdom in this was that they had shed blood and their war frenzy needed to be toned down lest they went berserk and behaved violently in their own settlements.

Today, Pakistan is suffering from the same malaise. Jihad became the profession and identity of the warriors of the Afghan jihad, but at the end of the day they were expected to shed their identity and become normal citizens. Just like detoxified drug addicts, these jihadis need to go through a process of reformation and reorientation.

There is an obvious need for a paradigm shift at the strategy level to quell the insurgency, especially in the light of the understanding that it is not a war against militants but a protracted crusade against militancy. Militants can eventually be eliminated through military means, but right now the state requires fighting a mindset that is weakening it from within. Only then can it wage a successful war against militancy.