Clueless in Washington?

TRUE to form, the US appears bent on sending all the wrong signals and making a tricky situation even dicier. By conducting war games that simulate capturing Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal in the event of extremists running amok in the country, Washington is indicating that its faith in Islamabad’s command and control structure is anything but steadfast. It also suggests less than optimum confidence in the Pakistan military, the ultimate custodians of the country’s nuclear weapons and facilities. To be fair, it could be said that the US is guilty of nothing more than keeping an open mind, readying its forces for the worst-case scenario and not necessarily the expected or likely outcome. Still, such exercises reinforce the growing fear, felt not only by laypersons but apparently also sections of officialdom, that direct US military intervention in Pakistan is no longer the stuff of fantasy or nightmares.

An American counter-proliferation expert quoted by The Washington Post believes that whether or not it comes to transpire, the mere possibility of such a move could prompt Pakistani authorities to shift nuclear weapons to locations that are less secure than their current repositories. This, the argument goes, would only increase the risk of capture by renegade elements, specifically the Taliban and their supporters. As it is there is a widespread feeling that the US is an ally of the government, not the people of Pakistan. If talk or rumour mounts of a US military intervention, anti-American sentiment in the country is bound to rise. This will help the extremists and the religio-political parties, not Washington or the establishment in Islamabad. The worst sufferer, as always, will be Pakistan’s silent majority.

Perhaps we have only ourselves to blame. Pervez Musharraf and Benazir Bhutto, two sides of the same coin as far as playing to the western gallery is concerned, have repeatedly invoked the extremism bogey to find favour with the White House. Not that the obscurantists and their barbaric brand of militancy are not a genuine threat to the stability and integrity of the country. Far from it. However, the way extremism has been tackled in Pakistan since 9/11 leaves a lot to be desired. Deals have been cut with militants from positions of patent weakness, and until recently almost every ‘crackdown’ was followed by a ‘soft’ period of relative tolerance. This approach served to fuel allegations that continued militancy serves Musharraf well, that keeping alive the spectre of Talibanisation — the ‘if it weren’t for me’ line — increases his value in the eyes of Washington. To his credit, he has always insisted that Pakistan’s nuclear assets are safe, but then this is a classic case of wanting to have it both ways. The country cannot be weak and strong at the same time. Benazir Bhutto is now warning that failure to combat militancy in the tribal areas is an invitation to ‘Balkanisation’ and a foreign (read US) invasion. She wants, in some undefined and amorphous way, to ‘punish’ the militants. At the same time she is ostensibly opposed to military action in Fata, claiming she would instead prefer to negotiate. This stance is neither here nor there, conflating as it does punishment with negotiation. Right on cue, she has also warned that Kahuta could fall into the hands of extremists. When our leaders look to the US for validation, talk of sovereignty is a sham.

Fewer funds for TB

UNDETERRED by the refusal of the Global Fund to Fight Aids, Tuberculosis and Malaria (GFATM) to accede to its request for $24m for Pakistan’s anti-TB programme, the government has pledged to ensure the smooth supply of medicines to patients. One hopes that it delivers on its assurances, and that the supply of drugs is not obstructed by the GFATM decision or that of the Global Drug Facility that has halted assistance in the procurement of medicines. True, Japanese and German pledges of assistance for procuring TB drugs as well as the availability of considerable funds from previous rounds of GFATM funding have given the health authorities some respite. But can the government continue to maintain a steady supply of drugs, considering that approximately 250,000 new patients are diagnosed with TB every year? Pakistan has a very high incidence of the disease, and it is estimated that up to two million people are infected. Any interruption in the supply of medicine could mean the spread of the disease, which is highly communicable, and also greater resistance by the disease-causing bacteria to medication, so that standard therapy is rendered ineffective.

Going by the alarming statistics on the TB front, Pakistan cannot afford to lose financial and other support from international donors. There has been little improvement in the situation, otherwise we would have witnessed a substantial decrease in the number of TB patients. The loss of funds will further slow down progress. Some introspection is needed here and the government would do well to identify and correct the shortcomings of its TB strategy that have caused the GFATM to complain of poor performance. Much of the fault lies in the poor quality of medical education that impedes early detection of cases and leads doctors to make wrong choices regarding treatment drugs. Also, while the government claims that the DOTS strategy, where patients are given medicines under supervision, is being implemented across the country, much remains to be done to improve accessibility to labs and doctors, especially in the rural areas, and to educate people about TB, its prevention and cure.

What ails PIA

LET us hope that with the recent lifting of the European Union’s ban on PIA’s air fleet, the chapter of the airline not meeting international safety aviation standards is closed. The EU ban, slapped in March after several warnings, cost the airline heavy, despite a partial easing of the ban in June when certain planes were allowed into the EU. PIA’s losses have been particularly colossal: it suffered Rs11bn in the first three quarters of the year. That it did not take drastic steps to get itself back into EU airspace is disappointing but perhaps indicative of the management’s laid-back attitude, not to mention misplaced priorities. For example, at a time when the airline was suffering such huge losses, what was the rationale behind hiring foreign cabin crew at the ridiculously high salaries of $5,000 when local staff was being paid a pittance? Did the management hope that foreign cabin crew would attract more passengers and thus increase revenues? For years it has been said that PIA is one of the most overstaffed airlines in the world, with many of its employees ill-qualified for the jobs they have been appointed to. Those who are qualified, like the technical and engineering staff, are poorly paid and undervalued. The price hike in fares has also been exorbitant and unjust, and the less said about flight delays and poor customer service the better.

The change in management earlier this year should have heralded a new beginning. Perhaps the new chairman needs more time to assess the steps that need to be taken to overhaul the airline — and an overhaul is needed as the airline is being run into the ground. The lifting of the EU ban should ease some of the pressure. PIA planes still need to pass ramp inspections at EU airports to ensure that safety standards are being met. There should be no compromise on that front whatsoever, especially as the passengers’ safety should be the airline’s first priority.

Has the Left left Pakistan?

INDIA’S West Bengal and Pakistan’s Punjab are comparable provinces in terms of population. About 80 million people live in each.

Since 1977, the people of West Bengal have voted Communist Party Marxist (CPM)-led coalitions into office. It would be preposterous to imagine communists forming the provincial government in our Punjab after the January elections. The Left simply does not matter when it comes to Pakistan’s political chessboard.

Is there any Left left in Pakistan? What happened to it as an organised entity? What about the ideas it championed? Are the issues that provided the Left rationale for action resolved in today’s Pakistani society? Should we mourn or celebrate the death of the Left?

The fate of the Left in Pakistan from the very beginning was bound-up with the machinations of Cold War politics and the way Pakistan’s ruling elite firmly aligned itself with the West in that conflict. The role of the Left in the country varied in each decade of Pakistan’s history up-to the 1990s. This brief run-down on the changing fortunes and misfortunes of the Pakistani Left since independence is offered here in the spirit of initiating discussion on this issue. The overview is confined to the present day Pakistan which until 1971 had less than half of the country’s population.

What do we mean by the Left in Pakistani context? For this article it refers to self-identified Leftist parties and individuals who question the existing social property relations and the international order associated with them. Marxism in some form remained its intellectual inspiration.

The Left identified itself with the cause of economically exploited urban and rural classes of the country. The state was seen as a custodian of the interests of absentee landlords and the big capital at home and world capitalism led by the United States at the global level. At the time of independence, the Communist Party of Pakistan (CPP), an offshoot of the Communist Party of India (CPI), became the organisational base to coordinate efforts to dismantle what it viewed as prevailing unequal and unjust socio-political order.

The CPI had lent its support to the Muslim League’s demand of Pakistan invoking the principle of national self-determination. That support, however, did not translate into a congenial working atmosphere for the CPP in the newly created state. Faiz Ahmed Faiz’s poem Subh-e-Azadi (Freedom’s dawn) succinctly summarised the 1950s for the Left in Pakistan. He called it ‘the night-bitten dawn.’ In March of 1951 several high ranking military officers, including Major General Akbar Khan, and their civilian cohorts were arrested for allegedly planning the overthrow of the government to install a pro-Moscow regime.

The Rawalpindi Conspiracy, as it is commonly known, was used as a ruse to suppress dissent and punish those individuals who were identified with the Left. It was also used to strengthen pro-West officers within the higher echelons of the armed forces. The subsequent witch-hunt led to the arrest of Faiz Ahmed Faiz and Syed Sajjad Zaheer, who had relocated to Pakistan in order to lead the CPP, and other intellectuals and trade unionists associated with the Left. And this, in Ayesha Jalal’s words turned Pakistan ‘into a veritable intellectual wasteland’.

The Pakistani Left, in term of organisational capacity, was in disarray during the 1960s. Consolation for this weakness came in the shape of issues which dominated the political discourse in the late 1960s. Spin-doctors of the Ayub regime organised celebrations under the banner of ‘the decade of development.’ All that ordinary West Pakistanis saw was growing disparity and pauperisation. Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, who had jumped the Ayubian boat, and the Pakistani left joined hands to express popular sentiments in the slogan of ‘roti, kapra, aur makan’ (bread, clothing, and housing). These were quintessential Left issues added by call for an independent, which meant less pro-American, foreign policy.

The 1970s started with the revolution of rising expectations which swiftly slid into the revolution of rising resentments and disillusionment. The political honeymoon between Bhutto and the Left didn’t last long. Imperatives of strengthening his hold on power compelled Bhutto to cozy up to Pakistan’s traditional power bases. The Left did not have the organisational capacity to match Bhutto’s populist polemics. In marked contrast with the 1970 elections where agenda revolved around roti, kapra, aur makan; the agenda of the 1977 elections was largely shaped by the clergy questioning Bhutto’s Islamic credentials. The Left had waned from the political horizon.

Then came General Ziaul Haq and his penchant to turn Pakistan into Islam’s fortress. The Soviet invasion of Afghanistan resulted in what Fred Halliday calls ‘the second cold war’ with Zia teaming up with Ronald Reagan to bleed the Soviets. Support for the Mujahideen was matched by repression at home. Intelligence and police forces actively hunted down Leftists, often on trumped up or trivial charges. As a result, university teachers, students, journalists, and assorted other activists with actual or imagined connections with communism were more likely to be found behind bars during much of the 1980s.

The tenacity with which some of these individuals faced the Zia regime made up for their lack of organisational capacity and intellectual depth. When most of these towering individuals were released by 1987 their mystique evaporated as they struggled for political anchorage in changed Pakistan.

The collapse of the Soviet Union dealt the ideological and psychological blow to the Left for which it was least prepared. The folksy Marxism it subscribed to viewed Soviet Union as infallible. The West celebrated the end of the Cold War as the ‘end of history’ where capitalism and liberal democracy had triumphed as the organising principle for political communities.

Formal political space in Pakistan was now occupied by centrist and right of the centre parties. Where did the Left go in the 1990s? Individuals belonging to the Left ran helter-skelter and most of them eventually ended up in two fields—media, both print and electronic; and mainly externally funded non-government organisations (NGOs) working in areas of education, health, micro-credit, and women’s empowerment.

The remunerative edge of the NGO sector means it is more appealing. But the changed ideological milieu has made erstwhile opponents of capital into means of spreading its reach in far flung corners of society in the name of micro-credit. Whereas in the past the Left spoke of classes and contradictions the new jargon is centred on community and cooperation.

Anti-imperialism and the struggle for equitable and just order at home went hand-in-hand in the traditional leftist agenda. In today’s Pakistan the plank of anti-imperialism is occupied by overly-simplistic anti-Americanism as championed by assorted religious parties and individuals like Imran Khan. Concern for an equitable and just socio-political order is conspicuously absent from the current political discourse.

With the Left nowhere to be seen in the formal political arena, Pakistan’s political discourse revolves around phrases like ‘extremism versus moderation’ both of which leave the fundamental structures of the society untouched. ‘The night-bitten dawn’ Faiz lamented half-a-century back has indeed lasted for a long time and shows no signs of ending.

hnizamani@hotmail.com

OTHER VOICES - Sindhi Press

Gen Musharraf’s last day in uniform

MUSHARRAF held military and civilian powers for eight years. This privileged status ended today. The uniform, which Gen Musharraf had termed his skin, was at last shed and he took oath as a civilian president.

There may be certain rules and principles of politics and governance, but our country is devoid of them. Here, there is no shortage of unfulfilled promises.

The holding of dual offices i.e. head of state and chief of the army staff has definitely affected the performance of the ruler as both offices are full-time jobs. However, Gen Musharraf’s political role will continue to be debated in the future.

As a civilian president too, Musharraf has had to face a series of problems — many of them were of his own creation. There was international pressure to revoke emergency and some other related issues, while lawyers and media communities raged on with their protests. Also, extra-constitutional measures and the proclamation of emergency required validation from the parliament.

There is an urgent need to restore the fundamental rights of the people, the freedom of the media and the sovereignty of the judiciary. — (Nov 28)

PPP’s election manifesto

THE PPP has finally announced its election manifesto for elections 2008…As a major party it would have done this much earlier, but in a country where fundamental rights and expression remain suspended this carries little weight.

… If George Bush were to lose the 2008 presidential elections, two major factors could be held responsible for his defeat. Firstly, it would be his failure to implement his election manifesto and secondly, his inability to shape his manifesto in accordance with the aspirations of the American people. Though we have different ground realities, the state and the government can improve things if they decide to do so. It is the failure of the political structure, which has hindered the promotion and development of democracy.

Benazir Bhutto’s election manifesto comprises five Es: employment, education, energy, environment and equality. Today, our biggest problem is unemployment. If the PPP fulfils this promise in its manifesto, it will change the lives of hundreds of thousands of youths…. We would like to advise all political parties to announce their election manifesto so that people can assess their programmes and decide for themselves. — (Dec 2)

Selected and translated by Sohail Sangi