Much at stake at Saarc summit

How close is policy to a heartbeat? To paraphrase a well-known adage: policy is a dish best eaten cold. A policy decision is an exercise in collective will, a marriage of two circles: one of the government and the other of the bureaucracy. All governments are temporary, or should be; institutions are permanent.

Institutions are required to be heartless, so there is no heartbeat factor operating there. They also prefer to be conservative and even negative, on the valid assumption that all change involves risk. Their job is to protect the nation, rather than merely the government, from such risk.

The heartbeat does make a difference at the political level. Take a recent example. Paul Martin has replaced Jean Chretien as Prime Minister of Canada. Both belong to the same party, the Liberals, and are committed to the same policies. But if Martin had been in charge nine months, it is highly possible that Canadian troops would have been alongside American ones in Iraq.

Alternatively, if Gordon Brown had been Prime Minister of Britain instead of Tony Blair, Britain might have been America's guard-dog rather than a poodle.

The inclinations of men do make a difference, even when they sit on the same platform. But once taken, a policy decision is meant to be sacrosanct. In the case of foreign policy, a successor government is required to honour a national commitment, although of course there can be no guarantees.

Is the latest attempt to bring normality between India and Pakistan vulnerable to President Pervez Musharraf's heartbeat? It may not be very polite to address such a question, but it has assumed a very real dimension after the last two assassination attempts. As is known, such attempts have been made before, but never on this scale, with such determination, and so close to home.

Once may be a matter of chance; twice may be a coincidence; but the third time, as Ian Fleming wrote, is definitely enemy action. So who is the enemy, and what is he doing in Islamabad-Rawalpindi? Theories have rolled out as quickly as the airwaves can absorb them. One side of the Rawalpindi bridge where the bomb attack took place was manned by the army and the other by the police - so which side was vulnerable?

The usual suspects are all on parade: disgruntled generals, as ever, are high on the list, and Al Qaeda is now alleged to be responsible for all that goes wrong. One irreverent website that concentrates chiefly on Pakistan, reported after the December 14 attack that a "major reshuffle in the top Pakistan Army ranks, almost within hours after the third (or the 8th) assassination attempt on General Pervez Musharraf, has brought the existing divisions within the Army to the forefront with Musharraf now becoming even more isolated at the top".

It claims that the transfer of the last Chief of General Staff, Lt.-Gen. Shahid Aziz Siddiqui to Lahore as corps commander is evidence of such isolation. It predicts the next casualty by naming a certain army general who, it says, has developed hostility towards the United States, "because he had been insulted and mishandled by the immigration staff at New York's JFK airport".

I know the feeling as do innumerable others, but I doubt that a mature man in a powerful position takes a view of vital importance because an immigration officer pinched his ego. There has to be a better reason. Journalists are accused of jumping to conclusions: actually, conclusions jump to journalists under deadline pressure.

So is there a better reason? Have significant numbers of the Pakistan establishment, whether in the army or the police services, become converts to Al Qaeda? It may be reasonable to suggest that the ferment against George Bush's America that is so evident among Muslims extends to the hearts of those who might not express it because they have a job to protect.

But that is not the same thing as becoming an activist who would instigate an assassination attempt against Pervez Musharraf because Osama bin Laden believes that he is one of the "Munafiqeen", or hypocrites who accept the faith publicly but secretly work to destroy Islam. If there are elements of the army involved then power is much better reason than ideology.

It means that for a sufficient number of generals, President Musharraf has become vulnerable. I am not a great believer in conspiracy theories: they are difficult to initiate and almost impossible to fulfil. But the very nature of a dictatorial system created through a coup lends itself to such suspicions.

However, within ten days two attempts were made on President Musharraf's life, and only Providence has kept him alive. Did the bridge-saboteurs of December 14 enter from the civilian side, past the police patrol? (One is using the police-military checkpoints as a metaphor of course.)

To uncover the effect, look for the cause. The mobile-bombers of Christmas Day were on a suicide mission, which makes it even more unlikely that the military was involved. This was an act of terrorism by people who believe that Musharraf is an enemy on a much larger battlefield. Pakistan has made regular use of shadow armies irrespective of who has been in power.

General Ziaul Haq became the darling of the western world when he took on the Soviets through insurgents who were given a secure base, arms and funds through the border towns across Afghanistan. The Taliban was sponsored not by table-thumping political mullah or general, but by Benazir Bhutto. Here was a classic case of cross-border intervention: the funds, weapons, strategies and intelligence came from the masters in Rawalpindi and Islamabad, and the project succeeded beyond anyone's expectations.

But every puppet is on a string only up to a point; there comes a moment when the puppet seeks liberation from the master, or the master finds the puppet has begun an independent dance. That moment of divergence came on 9/11. President Musharraf had no real choice when he stood beside America. There was nowhere else to go.

I recall an interview that President Musharraf gave to the Toronto Globe and Star during his visit to Canada. When asked the inevitable question about Osama, the President was reported as having remarked that Osama could be anywhere, even perhaps in Rawalpindi. This must have been said facetiously, or in a half-bitter jest. And yet there may be a serious truth there.

The power of Osama bin Laden is either overestimated or underestimated, depending on how you view it. He is definitely not the chief executive of some multinational organization that produces and exports terror. He cannot be, for the simple reason that he cannot even make a telephone call without risking discovery. He must be in deep isolation with only a few people through whom he can communicate.

But he has real power to spread violence, because of his ability to capture the mind and passion of a suicide-missionary. This is what keeps him alive in a hundred cities across the world, Rawalpindi included.

Islamabad has been ambivalent towards Frankenstein: both Kabul and Delhi are convinced that Pakistan calibrates its support for the militants who can keep both neighbours on edge. The blur is deliberate, but maybe the time has arrived to find out who is getting lost in this blur. One fact may throw some light: there have been more assassination attempts on Pervez Musharraf than Hamid Karzai. The idea is not to score points but to find a solution.

It is obvious that enough terrorist groups nurtured in Pakistan are now convinced that they must destabilize the government in Islamabad in order to strengthen themselves, and that there is no simpler way to do this than to assassinate the President.

Is President Musharraf now convinced that all terrorist organizations have now placed him on the enemy list, or merely Al Qaeda? If he believes that there is still room for compartmentalization, then he is fooling himself. If the Americans are looking for Jaish-i-Muhammad and Lashkar-i-Tayyaba, then Jaish and Lashkar are looking for Musharraf.

There is much at stake in the Saarc summit. A long season of discontent seems to be giving way to reasons: 'seems' is as positive as we can rationally get in Indo-Pakistan relations. Good sense prevails upon South Asia when good sense guides India and Pakistan; they are the engines of the region.

It is obvious that we live in troubled times, with some of the troubles created by President Musharraf's chief benefactor, President George Bush. The nations of Saarc can decide whether it is in their shared interest to play dangerous games with one another, or work together to challenge common enemies.

The motto of this Saarc summit seems obvious to me: If we don't hang together, we will hang separately.

The writer is editor-in-chief of Asian Age, New Delhi

Closer to Commonwealth re-entry?

The December 24 government-MMA agreement leading to the passage of the 17th Constitutional amendment and the vote of confidence for President Gen Pervez Musharraf in both houses of parliament has now created an opposition in the form of the MMA which will not oppose Gen Musharraf and the LFO. But whether the latest constitutional developments are sufficient democratic moves for Pakistan's re-admittance into the Commonwealth remains to be seen.

The October 2002 general elections had created a civilian federal government in the form of the PML(Q)-led coalition which was willing to support Gen Musharraf and the LFO. However, the year long deadlock between the government and a rebellious opposition, comprising the mainstream parties and the MMA opposing Gen Musharraf and the LFO, prevented a lifting of Pakistan's suspension from the Commonwealth throughout 2003, despite Gen Musharraf's optimism.

Gen Musharraf was reported to have said at a press conference in Paris on July 3, 2003, that he was very hopeful after his discussions with the British prime minister that maybe Pakistan could re-enter the Commonwealth in its next meeting, sometime towards the end of 2003.

But both subsequent Commonwealth reviews of Pakistan's membership in September and December 2003 decided to maintain the suspension. At the last review, which took place at the Commonwealth heads of government summit in Nigeria on December 5-6, the Commonwealth secretary-general had said that Pakistan needed further reforms before re-entry. The outstanding issues, he said, were that President Musharraf was also the general of the army, and that he gave himself the authority to dismiss parliament and the government.

The New Zealand prime minister also said in Nigeria that the Commonwealth would not re-admit Pakistan until President Musharraf stepped down as army chief and addressed other Commonwealth demands for democratic and judicial reforms.

Nevertheless, hopes for Pakistan's re-admission soon were raised by the Commonwealth secretary-general's comments that Pakistan was "certainly moving in the right direction on all fronts". The Australian Prime Minister was also reported to have said in Nigeria that Pakistan was "getting very close to the point where it could be re-admitted".

Thus for the government in Islamabad, last week's passage in parliament of the 17th amendment and the consequent vote of confidence for Gen Musharraf as the nation's president - being termed as "victory for parliament" and "success for democracy" - are seen as moves that warrant a lifting of the suspension.

A senator, also a PML leader, has expressed the hope that the constitutional agreement between the government and the MMA would lead to Pakistan's re-entry into the Commonwealth. Another senator has predicted an early re-entry into the Commonwealth, saying that the democratic process was now completed as the president had won the confidence vote from the electoral college.

The senators' optimism is not surprising, given the Indian foreign minister's comments in Nigeria in early December that non-progress on the LFO was the stumbling block. He was reported to have said that since there had been no progress on the resolution of the LFO, matters remained where they were in September and, therefore, the decision remained what it was in September, namely, the continued suspension of Pakistan from the councils of Commonwealth.

There is no doubt that India plays an important role in determining Pakistan's status in the Commonwealth. Apart from being the largest member (with a population of 1 billion) of the multinational association of Britain and its former colonies, India is also one of the eight-member ministerial action group. In 1989, it was the Indian government under Rajiv Gandhi who sponsored Pakistan's re-application for Commonwealth membership under the civilian government of Benazir Bhutto.

India was also actively engaged in the Commonwealth decision in the early 1990s to enlarge its priorities to include the importance of democratic institutions. Since then, the countries which have been suspended for violating its democratic guidelines include Nigeria (suspended in 1995 but readmitted in 1999), Zimbabwe (suspended in 2002 and left the Commonwealth in December 2003), and Pakistan (suspended since the military coup in October 1999).

The Indian foreign minister, currently in Islamabad for the Saarc summit, said last Friday that a successful Saarc summit had the potential of rubbing off on all bilateral relationships, including the relationship between India and Pakistan. It goes without saying that the Islamabad government would like to see a successful Saarc summit rubbing off on India's stance in the Commonwealth regarding Pakistan's membership.

India's stance notwithstanding, two factors which are expected to figure in the Commonwealth's decision on Pakistan's membership in subsequent reviews are Gen Musharraf's commitment to leaving the office of the COAS, and the stand on the LFO being taken by the remaining opposition mainstream parties, who view the passage of the 17th amendment and the vote of confidence in parliament for Gen Musharraf as a setback and a serious blow to democracy.

Many may consider the significance of membership of the 53-member Commonwealth as little more than symbolic, it being of little financial or political importance. But for Islamabad, re-entry will not only mark a formal end to the isolation in the international system brought upon by the 1999 coup, but also enable it to have access to western economic assistance and military equipment without excessive dependence on the United States.

Can Saarc's ambitions overcome its prejudices?

In the days before Iraq's invasion of Kuwait in August 1990, Kuwait's massive petrodollar investments in real estate and numerous ventures in Europe and Canada had become a source of resentment for the anti-Arab business lobby in the West. The controversy whipped up by this brazen expression of prejudice forced British prime minister Margaret Thatcher to ask the Kuwaiti government to sell back a majority of its 26 per cent stake in British Petroleum.

The prejudice against Kuwait was fanned even within Arab ranks, and at least on one occasion, there was a serious threat to the Gulf Cooperation Council, the grouping of six Gulf nations, because of some minor football related incident between Kuwait and Saudi Arabia.

In the current hurly burly of the events in Iraq and Palestine, we may tend to lose sight of the past. It is well to remember that the demons of prejudice cannot be forgotten even if the shifting tide of events results in new alliances with old rivals.

Today, as heads of the seven South Asian countries meet in Islamabad to forge their hitherto elusive free trade agreement, Saarc's ambitious Safta, it may be pertinent to consider the climate of prejudice that hangs so heavy over the region as a real obstacle.

Let us ponder the most obvious biases in the South Asian context. First of all, Mr Bal Thackeray, the Shiv Sena strongman whose fanatical hordes specialize in digging up cricket pitches where Pakistani players are likely to play. Would he be a silent onlooker if Pakistani businessmen and other assorted investors take a chunk of the scrips at the Bombay Stock Exchange? How would Mr Narendra Modi, with his fanatical notions of Muslims, welcome investors from the land of "Mia'n Musharraf" to India's most vibrant business hub in Ahmedabad?

Consider also the kind of welcome Bangladeshi investors may get in neighbouring Assam, an Indian state where migrants from the impoverished Bihar have become targets of prejudice and ire triggered by a shrinking job market.

Of course there must be similar problems in store for Indian businessmen planning forays into the surrounding countries. The recent anti-Indian riots in Nepal, fuelled no doubt by memories of an Indian blockade of Nepal, come to mind. How comfortable would an Indian tycoon from Tamil Nadu be in opening a supermarket in Colombo? Or how well received would a Sinhalese businessman feel in Tamil Nadu? But even more worrying from the Indian point of view should be remarks in a TV documentary made by General H.M. Ershad, former president of Bangladesh and host of the first Saarc summit in 1985 in Dhaka. "Do you really want to know why we thought of Saarc?" he remarked authoritatively. "It was because all of us (the other six) were allergic to India, so we wanted to get together to deal with the problem by having India as an equal partner in the group."

This 'allergy' would seem to require attention before the next agenda on business cooperation is put on the Saarc table. Some Indian analysts, however, believe that the responsibility for ensuring economic integration lies with Pakistan.

"Where is Pakistan headed, under General Musharraf?" wonders Shekhar Gupta, Editor of Indian Express. "Can it modernize, stabilize itself and join the global mainstream in the foreseeable future? If it does, terrorism, Kashmir, the visceral, fundamental hatreds and insecurities will matter less and less as time passes. If it does not, no summit would count for very much."

The discussion over a common currency for Saarc, set in motion by Indian Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee's comments at a recent international symposium in Delhi, would thus seem outlandish in a polity where the official policy is for one neighbour to demonize the other, in this case the would-be participants. Can we ignore the fact that there is a need for member-countries to first have a free market system, including full capital account convertibility, before they can dream of a common currency?

Mr Tarun Das, speaking on behalf of Indian businessmen at the recent symposium in Delhi, argued that Saarc countries meet "all the tests" for a monetary unification. "Our economies are in similar stages of development, facing similar problems, and carrying out broadly similar economic reforms. Forex reserves are rising everywhere, so we can build up a sufficient chest to deal with future problems."

According to the director-general of the Confederation of Indian Industry, there is another reason why this is doable - that most South Asians already use the rupee as currency. Sri Lanka, Nepal, Pakistan and India all have the rupee as their currency. Bhutan has both the Indian rupee and the ngultrum as legal tender. Maldives' currency is the Rufiya. Only Bangladesh has the taka. So, it should be easy to get a popular consensus for a unified currency.

The Pakistani argument, presented by S. Akbar Zaidi, Karachi- based economist and social scientist, was more cautious. "Just as the April announcement caught many by surprise, so has his (Vajpayee's) most recent statement, the idea of a common currency for South Asia, presumably on the pattern of the European Union's Euro. Some months ago there were statements from Indian ministers floating the idea of a South Asian Federation or Union, a concept which has been welcomed and echoed by some liberal and secular civil society groups in Pakistan," Mr Zaidi said.

However, he recalled that such statements had followed numerous others from India, of a very different nature, where ministers threatened to teach Pakistan a lesson, of the right to a pre-emptive strike, and of doing 'an Iraq' to Pakistan. In other words, the Indian political establishment needs to make up its mind about what it wants to do with Pakistan: an Iraq, or a Europe?

* * * * *

The mysterious ways of stock exchanges often prompt more questions than they ever answer. What does Sachin Tendulkar's 9000th run in Test cricket from a match against Australia have to do with Friday's rally at the Bombay bourse where the sensex touched a historic 6000-point mark?

According to the pundits quite a lot. Among the other reasons said to be responsible for the "feel good factor" is the growing likelihood of one-on-one talks between Prime Minister Vajpayee and Prime Minister Jamali. The mysterious sensex however had gone up when the Indian Army began its build up along the Pakistan border following the December 13 attack on parliament in 2001. And now it has gone up apparently because the same countries are talking peace.

Mind your language

They may live in posh, swanky localities or in shanty towns, but the citizens of Karachi face similar civic problems like water shortages, power breakdowns and traffic snarl-ups. They also now share a fast-evolving informal language marked by words like jugar, lash pash, khancha and phrases like topi ghumana, meter ghoomna, pinki hona, etc.

Though these expressions may not always be easy on the ear, there is no locality in the city - from upscale areas like Defence and Clifton and middle-class localities like Gulshan-i- Iqbal and Federal B Area to working-class slums like Lyari and Orangi Town - where they are not in use. They are juicier and more direct.

They also cut across the ethnic barrier. In a city where linguistic fissures run deep, these expressions are as popular among the indigenous Balochi-, Sindhi- and Gujrati-speaking peoples as among the Urdu-speaking community and the Pushto- and Punjabi-speaking settlers.

However, the sixty-four thousand dollar question is: who coins these slang expressions and colloquialisms and how do they travel from one locality or a population group to another? Some of them - such as lafra, supari, bhai - are borrowed from Indian movies based on life in Mumbai. Popular actors who appeal to people with plebeian tastes also give currency to expressions such as kutu and chief saab. Yet others are invented by creative chatterboxes who spend many a leisurely hour at teashops in nightly gatherings.

Traders and shopkeepers employ code words in their speech so that they can discuss with one another prices and the quality of wares in front of unsuspecting customers. In addition, they also develop a specialized argot - containing words like boney, kori, etc - to cover various aspects of business. Stockbrokers make the most contribution to the enrichment of this kind of vocabulary. The need to secretly talk about corrupt practices and underhand dealings at government offices and police stations gives birth to words like parchi and bhatta.

It cannot be gainsaid that urban culture takes its own course, attaching little importance to linguistic refinements and elegance of speech. In this regard, casual language can be compared to pop singing. Incidentally, a combination of the two is found in a funky song sung by a Karachi-based vocalist - Bas bhai bas ziyada bat nahin, chief saab.

Skewed priorities

I magine the surprise of Karachi University students when they were informed that they would now be expected to wear academic robes to campus. The initial reaction was of disbelief. Many could only wonder at the justification of introducing robes as compulsory attire. Academic robes were in vogue in universities and colleges in the early part of the last century but were abandoned for their impracticality and lack of utility by almost all except more tradition-bound educational institutions by the 1950s or so.

Like the white wigs of judges, robes were seen as unnecessary accessory that could best be done away with. However, the Karachi University administration has now reintroduced the academic robe and made it compulsory for students to wear it.

There are some who argue that the robe will help create an air of equality on campus as everyone would be wearing the same attire. Having said that, the Karachi University is already seen as an excellent example of how young men and women from various localities of the city and from different economic and ethnic backgrounds come together for the common desire of gaining knowledge. The university community has not had to resort to such measures as donning robes to create this atmosphere. Moreover, haven't the university authorities got their priorities somewhat mixed up? Surely, declining academic standards and lack of intellectual stimulus need more attention than gowns.

The mysterious artist

An observant colleague has been admiring beautiful sketches on the walls near the tomb of Abdullah Shah Ghazi on her way to work and back home for some months now. She says that to her inexpert eye, the sketches look very well drawn. Every time she happens to look at them, she wonders whether they have been drawn by one of the many people sitting on the pavement from across the tomb.

She has noticed that most of them are either dozing or busy puffing away at cigarettes in a drugged state with stoned looks on their haggard, unshaven faces. While some smoke their cigarettes openly, others do so under a makeshift tent huddled together in groups. The colleague wonders whether the unknown artist belongs to the group of these drug addicts.

She thinks that he could be one of those who sit along the pavement in the morning working through one another's hair looking for lice. But she doubts that. The sketches are far too fine. Is he some heart- broken young man or a jobless artist? She wishes she could meet him and find out who he is and where he learnt how to draw so well.

Few can fail to notice that the walls near the tomb are covered with all kinds of graffiti. From political slogans, advertisements of Madadgar 15 and names of various elected lawmakers to notices that request people not to relieve themselves indiscriminately, the walls are there for the taking. The colleague knows that most of these slogans have been written surreptitiously at night. However, she feels sure that the mysterious artist, who seems to have an eye for detail, works on his charcoal sketches during the day. He cannot include such minute details in darkness.

No compensation

At least three people were killed and many others injured last month in a natural gas outlet explosion at a petrol station in Defence. Police have registered a case against the service station staff and the Sui Southern Gas Company. The government and the oil marketing company have been exonerated from all responsibility for the tragic incident.

Despite the fact that the accident became a high-profile case and all the stakeholders - the Defence Housing Authority, Shell Pakistan, Sui Southern Gas Company and the Sindh police - mourned the deaths, no compensation has been announced so far for the innocent victims. Why? Because responsibility as to who pays has yet to be determined?

Attacker at large

At around 8pm last Sunday, cars waiting to take a U-turn at the Quetta Darwesh Hotel cut on Chaudhry Khaleequzzaman Road, or the main Gizri Road as it is popularly known, had to drive a few yards further to take a turn because a passenger bus had blocked their way.

According to an eyewitness, the bus driver had pulled up his vehicle in a hurry, sprinted across to the eating house and, with a sharp butcher's knife, slit the throat of a person enjoying a cup of tea there. In the commotion that followed, the driver was able to return to the bus and drive it away.

Present among the many shocked drivers and passersby who witnessed the crime was the father of a colleague. Narrating the incident he could only tell what he saw. He couldn't really recall if there were any passengers in the bus. It is also not clear whether the attacker had the knife with him or whether he had picked it up from the restaurant or whether the victim was an employee or a customer at the place.

Everything happened very swiftly and passersby became too involved in attending to the victim to catch the bus driver. A traffic policeman quickly stopped a Suzuki pickup and some people helped the victim into it so that he could be taken to hospital. Someone had also wrapped a muffler around his neck to control the bleeding. And that's all we know about the incident, for most English-language newspapers carried no news about the crime the following morning. One wonders how many such crimes go unreported.

email: karachi_notebook@hotmail.com