In pursuit of peace as underdogs? (My piece published in THE NEWS dated 22 Sep 2013)

Some call them an ideologically motivated lot, some consider them as a bunch of misguided people working on behest of hostile foreign agencies, then there are others who simply take them as terrorists, while the fact on ground today is that TTP has recently earned the status of a stake holder parallel to the Government of Pakistan.  Not only that, they are now on the driving seat and dictating terms with some of the political parties dancing to their tune and some vying to sleep with them, leaving the military leadership high and dry with nowhere to look for direction, meanwhile the people watch with indifference – spectre of state succumbing under coercion to a non-state militant entity.

Though TTP’s ascent to such enviable position could be attributed to our perpetual failings at government and institutional levels, yet the happenings in the last few months give a clear indication of how the TTP is following a well thought-out strategy to extract maximum from the government which has been forced to take the back seat, react to evolving situations and now seems to be pursuing peace as underdogs.   

It all started with influencing the outcome of May 2013 elections by TTP to ensure that those political parties reached the corridors of power which could easily be ‘persuaded’ through the instrument of coercion or otherwise. By and large, they achieved that objective.

In the next phase, while the people were anticipating a sigh of relief with change of government, TTP unleashed unabated spate of major terrorist incidents during first sixty days of the new government to shatter the will of the political leadership as part of the envisaged plan.

Apparently, the strategy adopted by the TTP paid off, a manifestation of which we saw in buckling down of the PM to threats against execution of the convicted terrorists. The TTP reciprocated by a sudden ending of terrorist acts directed against the civilians and government installations, barring military targets, indicating some sort of covert deal, as a follow up of which APC was held which recommended ‘unconditional talks with the people of FATA’.

Amid such environment of reciprocity, TTP has not only intensified attacks on military targets but have vowed to continue the same. Again, a well thought-out undertaking to create a wedge between the political leadership and military establishment, as they know that latter’s hands would remain tied-up due to government’s resolve not to let any terrorist incident, and response thereof, derail the peace process being pursued through negotiations.  

While no sane person would question the need to achieve peace through dialogue, one may raise questions regarding the efficacy of such an undertaking in environment, whereby, the government has been forced into falling on its knees, to what extent the government can give-in to TTP’s demands and who would guarantee peace even after the TTP takes away major share of the cake on the negotiation table?

Notwithstanding above, as the stage is being set for talks with the TTP, the government can least afford any further miscalculations. They should have known that negotiations with TTP would only yield results if undertaken from a point of strength and since they have already missed the bus, the only way they can redeem is to build consensus, show resolve and develop a clear cut thought process on how to tackle the issue of terrorism, including use of military option, should the envisaged talks with TTP fail. Moreover, the government should not accede to any pre-conditions by TTP or the negotiations would start and end with nothing in the platter for government.

The political leadership also needs to shun the misplaced contention that war with TTP for years has achieved no results. The fact is that we as a nation have never fought any war with TTP, though clean-up operations were conducted here and there by the Army, wherein, it succeeded in evicting them but there were fewer casualties as most of them moved to other areas to regroup later. TTP was by and large perceived to comprise our own people and dealt with accordingly, at times Army paying a very heavy cost in terms of soldiers’ lives. If the political leadership, fully backed by the nation, decides to root-out terrorism through the use of all instruments, including force, environment may not remain so cozy for those operating against Pakistan’s interests.

Linked with above, there is a need to develop a clear understanding of the nature of threat Pakistan faces today. For last so many years, we have remained embroiled in the controversies of good and bad Taliban and, as such, were never clear and still undecided on how to deal with those who directly or indirectly threaten Pakistan’s existence. While we may not challenge the legitimacy of struggle by the Afghan Taliban to oust the foreign forces from their land, we should also not ascribe to the idea that they are our assets or that Afghanistan provides us strategic depth. Pakistan is a nuclear power and its strategic depth lies in internal stability and economic viability. As such, any entity or non-state actor which strives for Pakistan’s instability must be taken as enemy number 1 and promptly taken to task.

The political leadership must also have a clear understanding of the nature of war being waged these days, whereby, it has become a creeping phenomenon with use of militancy as one of its manifestations. It must remain cognizant of the fact the some factions of TTP may be playing in the hands of our adversaries and would endeavour to stall the peace process, objective being to continue to bleed Pakistan. In such environment, the government should not only include military establishment as a stake-holder in the negotiations but also give due weightage to their view-point. It is also imperative because ultimately it is the troops on ground that would mainly face the consequences of any failings on the part of government at the negotiation table. 

Introduction to my individual research paper, the one I had submitted while attending NDC in yrs 2003-2004, peak of Musharraf’s rule:

1.            At its creation on 14 August 1947, Pakistan comprised the territories of Balochistan, the NWFP, Sindh, some parts of Punjab and East Bengal. Bengalis, Punjabis, Sindhis, Pushtuns and Baluchis represented distinct nationalities or ethnic groups in Pakistan who have had their distinct history, culture, language, traditions, customs and traditional homeland territories, and even ethno-national movements originating prior to the independence. Pakistan, as it emerged with manifest diversity, was a state-nation and not a nation-state. While propounding his well-known Two-Nation Theory, the Quaid-e-Azam was not unaware of the sectarian feuds and ethno-national cleavages among the Muslims of the areas that constituted Pakistan. He mainly aimed at securing a homeland state for the Muslims of the Indian Sub-continent within or outside free India to safeguard them against political and economic domination by the Hindus and proceeded on the assumption that the state would level down ethnic, linguistic and other differences in due course of time. For such a diverse society, it was imperative to have very well developed institutionalized systems, including political, and sincere competent leadership.

2.            The Lahore Resolution formed the basis for creation of Pakistan as a federal state, wherein, the people of its federating units, with diverse ethnicity and culture, could practice their religion with freedom, follow their traditions / culture and, above all, have equal opportunity of economic well-being. Over 56 years of Pakistan’s history, however, presents a different story, marked by excessive centralization / authoritarian rules, wide economic disparity and religious polarization.

3.            Barring few exceptions, the political scene has been dominated by opportunist politicians, unenlightened clergy, ambitious bureaucrats and autocratic military rulers. This has given rise to political, socio-economical and religious polarization in the country. Though, then perceived as a requirement, the Quaid-e Azam, by permitting himself to be elected the President of the Constituent Assembly, while simultaneously holding the office of the Governor General, concentrated both legislative and executive powers, not in one body but in one individual. He unfortunately could not live long to set the system on the right track and, the nation, since then, has witnessed a pattern, whereby, quest for power has remained the name of the game in Pakistan’s polity, with adverse ramifications for the country. The military rules, spread over slightly less than half of Pakistan’s history, did provide temporary relief but left behind greater ills, the greatest being internal disharmony. Failure of the political leadership to deliver and successive military take-overs, thus, set in a climate of political uncertainty and eroded national cohesion, a must for a federal state.

4.            Another emerging major threat to Pakistan’s internal security is the religious polarization, often manifested in the shape of sectarianism and, more recently, as terrorism. To analyze the problem in its true perspective, it is essential to clearly define the purpose of creation of Pakistan. There is also a need to determine whether Pakistan is a nation-state or is it an ideological Islamic state, based on the concept of Islamic nationalism or is there any co-relationship between the two concepts in the context of creation of Pakistan. Historically, Pakistan was created to safeguard the interests of the Indian Muslims from Hindu domination. The Quaid never visualized it as a theocratic state and wanted Pakistan to be a modern, progressive Islamic state. It was in the Objectives Resolution of 1949 that Pakistan was given an ideological identity. While, in essence, it provided, a very formidable base to the newly created state, it also provided clergy with the leverage to interpret Islam for their vested interests. Its manifestation was amplified during President Zia-Ul- Haq’s regime, gained impetus during the “Jihad” in Afghanistan and IHK and now Pakistan is faced with a situation where religious extremism and terrorism is not only threatening its internal cohesion but also adversely affecting its image in the comity of nations.               

5.            Pakistan’s challenge of tackling its adverse global image, though initially the result of handling the entire question of links to terrorism and militancy, must eventually depend on how far the country successfully tackles the multi-dimensional  dilemmas  within. A state which is continuously locked in one stream of political disorder after another cannot hope to embark upon long term stability. Likewise, a state which remains in the midst of recurring bouts of uncertainty, cannot expect to oversee economic progress and social restructuring of the kind which is long overdue.

6.            President Musharraf’s three years rule and the present government, functioning under his direct supervision, have taken certain measures to bring the country out of the quagmire and address issues related to internal disharmony and religious extremism, yet a lot is required to be done in this regard.

Extracts from the remaining paper:-

1.         Military Rules.           Pakistan has remained plagued by political uncertainty, mainly caused by intermittent take-overs by the Army. Army’s rule is also looked upon with apprehension by the three smaller provinces. It has always been construed by them as rule by the Punjabis, and resented. This perception alone has adversely affected national cohesion. Some of the other major adverse ramifications include retarding the growth of democracy, weakening of the political system, causing constitutional problems and hindering the development of the institutions. To illustrate, main highlights of different military regimes are given below in a very brief form:-

a.            Field Marshal Ayub Khan’s Rule

                          (1)          Abrogated 1956 Constitution.

  (2)          Promulgated the 1962 Constitution, proclaiming Presidential form of government. This was not acceptable to the masses in general who also resented the Basic Democracy System introduced by him to perpetuate his rule.

   (3)          Era witnessed tremendous economic growth and industrialization, yet unequal distribution of wealth ultimately brought people on to the streets. He eventually abdicated.

    b.        General Yahya’s Martial Law.    Held free and fair elections, however, failed to ensure transfer of power to the political leadership. Resultantly, the country was dismembered and erstwhile East Pakistan became Bangladesh in 1971.

    c.        General Zia’s Regime

(1)          General Zia’s rule is characterized by the legacy of the dictatorial policies when floggings of political foes and critics blatantly remained the crudest enforcement tool in the hands of military dominated state.

(2)          Overthrow of Bhutto, his hanging and ruthless suppression of Movement for Restoration of Democracy completely alienated the people of Sindh.

(3)          Though his leadership contributed in forcing the Soviet forces out of Afghanistan, yet the nation is still facing the aftermath of his policies to woo the clergy. ‘Kalashnikov Culture’ and ‘Jehadi Culture’, emanated during his tenure and still haunt the Pakistani society.             

   d.      President Musharraf’s Rule.       Though President General Musharraf’s rule has    many achievements to its credit, yet tragically, Pakistan’s politics remain confronted with an almost dead end, and the hope of a young democracy maturing with time and experience remains an  uncertain prospect.

Waning hope for change

Unprecedented turn-over in the May 2013 elections, emergence of PML (N) as the largest party, Mian Nawaz Sharif’s decisions to respect PTI’s mandate in KPK, nomination of Dr Abdul Malik, a nationalist, as CM Balochistan and smooth formation of the governments at the centre and the provinces were welcomed by the masses in general as a good omen for change.

After less than four weeks of incumbent government, the euphoria has faded and hopes for the envisaged change are waning away. Though at this stage it is too early to comment on government’s performance, one may analyse its actions / decisions from the perspective of the direction in which it is likely to proceed. That be the gauge, things do not auger well as government has already discredited itself because of certain decisions / actions, or lack thereof, and unless correction course is applied, things are likely to get worse, turning into total failure.

To start with, there are big question marks on the conduct of elections, especially in Punjab, and, as such, legitimacy of the incumbent government. Despite assurances that government would look into the charges of massive rigging, no follow-up action has been taken.

In an environment where other provinces have certain reservations about Punjab, one fails to comprehend the logic behind taking more than 80% cabinet ministers from this province, especially when most of the key appointments including PM, NA speaker, COAS and CJ (though he holds Balochistan domicile) are also from Punjab.   

Though the government had short time and little fiscal space, yet it could have done better while preparing the budget. Instead of milking the wealthy and providing relief to the poor, government chose to rely on indirect taxation, directly affecting all and sundry, irrespective of their income. The budget is rightly being termed as ‘anti-poor, anti-people’.

Contrary to expectations, there has been upsurge in terrorist related activities with the government demonstrating total lack of will and ability to deal with the situation. The Interior Minister, as if still in opposition, seems to be more interested in undermining the agencies, rather than taking responsibility and condemning those who own the terrorist acts.

Controversial appointments; (1) Appointment of Dr Musadik Malik as  Special Assistant to PM on power and energy (as per information available on internet, he is basically a pharmacist specializing in treatment of erectile dysfunction) (2) Appointment of Najam Sethi as acting chairman of PCB, prompting people to wonder whether his appointment is a reward for the role he played, or failed to play, in the outcome of elections in Punjab, fraught with rigging charges at massive scale (3) Appointment of Captain (Retired) Shujaat Azeem as Advisor to PM on Aviation Affairs, a clear cut case of conflict of interest as he is also CEO of Royal Airport Service, which provides ground handling facility to airlines (unless resigned recently).

Relief in load shedding still remains an illusion.

Circular debt; Logically, the government should have first enquired into charges of bloated operational expenses, over invoicing and kickbacks, scrutinized contracts, carried out audit and then settled the circular debt, especially payment to the IPPs, after necessary bargaining. Instead, it has decided to clear Rs 326 billion of circular debt by 30 June 2013, a decision which is raising many doubts, especially when Mian Mansha, PM’s close friend and owner of a number of IPPs, is one of the members of task force which has recommended this course. Isn’t it a case of conflict of interest? Similarly, the lawyer who has been representing IPPs in their case vs the government has been appointed Attorney General of Pakistan. Seems the government, as well as the opposition, very conveniently, chose to pay no heed to the news item published in THE NEWS dated 14^th June 2013 under heading ‘Auditor General finds Rs 290 billion scam of oil companies’.

Motor vehicles amnesty scheme; Notwithstanding contradictory verdicts by IHC and LHC on legality of this scheme, as per FBR statement 50,901 non-duty paid vehicles have been legalized, generating record revenue of Rs15.837 billion (THE NEWS dated 20^th June 2013). Taking this figure as correct, the average collection per vehicle comes to slightly over Rs 300000/-. With the number of luxury cars that we see on roads after the introduction of this scheme, the figure seems peanuts and needs enquiring into. The government, however, is mum over the issue.

Criminal silence of opposition on dubious payment of circular debt and failure of the government to enquire into details of the motor vehicle amnesty scheme, indicates some sort of understanding between the government and opposition, Charter of Democracy turning into Charter of Mutual Corruption with Impunity.

In this backdrop, Musharraf’s trial has suddenly taken a centre stage, leaving people guessing about the timings, motive and the reason as to why he being tried for 3 November 2007 act but not for toppling Mian Nawaz Sharif’s previous government on 12 October 1999.

While commencement of Musharraf’s trial proceedings has surely caused public’s distraction from certain major issues, the PM is adamant that initiation of proceedings to try Musharraf is in compliance with the SC’s decision, which is factually incorrect. Firstly, invoking Article 6 of the constitution is government’s prerogative and the SC cannot direct the government in this regard and, secondly, if the PM is so concerned about implementing SC verdicts, he should first take action on SC’s decision on Asghar Khan Case, which is binding on him. Similarly, SC is also showing partiality by asking the government to intimate its intent to try Musharraf as per Article 6, where it has no jurisdiction, while ignoring the Asghar Khan Case in which action on its decision is pending.

As such, neither the PM nor Judiciary should be selective in dispensation of justice. If Musharraf is to be tried under Article 6, the PM cannot just order his trial for act committed on 3 November 2007. It is also incumbent upon him to initiate proceedings against Musharraf under Article 6 for his act of 12 October 1999 and ensure that all those who abetted his action are brought to justice, in line with the 18^th Amendment.

No matter what the outcome of Musharraf’s ongoing trials, the facts are; (1) He committed unconstitutional acts on 12 October 1999 and 3 November 2007, in which he was abetted by many (2) Baitullah Mehsud group was responsible for BB’s murder (3) Nawab Akbar Bugti committed suicide by blowing the cave he was in, taking down some Army officers with him (4) It is also a fact that Musharraf is not being tried under Article 6 for toppling Mian Nawaz Sharif’s previous government on 12 October 1999 because the incumbent CJ was part of the bench which indemnified Musharraf’s act, took oath on PCO, was ultimately benefitted by doing so by his elevation to CJ’s appointment and, thus, is an abetter.

I may also clarify that contrary to general perception that Musharraf served US interests and that the latter is trying to save him, the fact is that the top US leaders are covertly, and the mid-tier leadership / think tank are overtly, blaming Musharraf / Pakistan Army / ISI for their failure in Afghanistan. As such, in their perspective, Musharraf must be punished and Pakistan Army / ISI must be undermined, a manifestation of which we are seeing these days, some of us behaving more loyal than the king in this regard. 

In nut shell, justice must be seen as done in Musharraf’s cases, as failing to do so would have grave ramifications. Moreover, using Musharraf’s cases for causing distraction from other issues or settling scores or undermining Army as an institution would be a folly on the part of the government, as the stakes are too high.

People have great expectations from Mian Nawaz Sharif. Accordingly, he must set his priorities right and concentrate on alleviating the misgivings of the masses, rather than losing direction by succumbing to the hawks in his cabinet, parties with vested interests and Judiciary. 

After elections 2013, time to move on (My article published in THE NEWS dated 17 May 2013)

 

ISLAMABAD: Notwithstanding rigging charges and sit-ins here and there, Elections 2013 are over and the Pakistani nation has all the reasons to rejoice on two counts; firstly, the people defied threats by terrorists and came out in large numbers to vote and, secondly, the results indicate establishment of a stable government in the centre, defying most of the analysts who were of the opinion that there would be a split mandate, hung parliament and weak government, vulnerable to intrigues by different stake-holders.

Though leaders of the main political parties have accepted the mandate and are all set to form governments in the centre and provinces, yet barring PML(N) most are alleging rigging in elections and making demands which might sabotage the entire electoral process. Imran Khan has already demanded verification of thumb impressions in certain NA seats by Nadra. If carried out, given our political culture, discrepancies would be there and results may lead to a chain reaction, most demanding verification of thumb impressions in their respective constituencies. Such an undertaking would surely undermine the entire electoral process, letting down the masses and diminishing their hope in democracy.

Can we afford time to go through the ordeal and derail the process, especially when regional and international environment favour a stable Pakistan, is a question which our political leadership must ponder, especially when no substantial change in the outcome of elections is anticipated, if we survive the undertaking.

We all know that ISAF / US forces are to complete draw-down of their forces from Afghanistan by end year 2014 and most of their weapons / equipment worth billions of US dollars would have to pass through Pakistan. For its smooth passage, two pre-requisites must be ensured; Firstly, a stable Pakistan and, secondly, governments in the centre and KPK by political parties who could interact with Taliban for causing least interruptions in the move back. As such, for the international community, especially USA, the out-come of elections is a dream come true with NS in the centre and PTI in KPK, both for whom Taliban have soft corner. In this backdrop, we are likely to see substantial international support to keep Pakistan stable, at least till end year 2014, and a patient hearing by USA to demands, such as, not to use drones unilaterally.

Thus, despite the fact that in the last five years the PPP-lead coalition has played havoc with the country and put economy in shambles, NS government is likely to get a head-start due to regional environment and international support, thereof. Though he may have to take certain hard decisions to put economy back on track and, on the political front, deal with Zardari, playing the ‘Sindh Card’ and majority in Senate to retain presidency, yet support of international players would be readily forthcoming.

With the establishment, NS will have to tread a cautious line, absorb what all is happening on Western Front and then take decisions as head of executive and not with a mind-set of an opposition leader. He must bear in mind that Pakistanis have paid a very heavy price in pursuit of a strategy, whereby, the foreign forces are now withdrawing from Afghanistan, with India nowhere to be seen in the end-game. He must also remain cognizant of the fact that 2nd tier US leadership and think tank are openly blaming Pakistan Army / ISI for their defeat in Afghanistan. Such a stance has repercussions for Pakistan, though there is not much they can do at a stage when they require Pakistan Army’s support to ensure smooth draw down of their forces.

As for PPP, they lost miserably not because the Taliban did not let them campaign but because of their poor performance. They failed to deliver and suffered, as simple as that. It’s time for them to carry out appraisal of their performance in last five years, take corrective measures and perform in Sindh. The analogy that ‘elections are won by money and not performance’ has backfired now and will in future. If they must re-enter Pakistan’s political arena, performance would be the key.

Though PTI could have secured a few more seats, in my view, the position it has attained is a blessing in disguise. Firstly, some of Imran Khan’s policies are unrealistic and during campaigning, he had made promises as per public perceptions which he could not possibly fulfil at the central government level e.g withdrawal of forces from FATA and Baluchistan, shooting down of drones, education policy, election of SHO by villagers, etc. He had declared that he would not ally with anybody to form the government but already we see that he is making a coalition government, conceding important ministries, such as education and finance, to JI. So, in fact, IK has been saved from a lot of embarrassment getting fewer seats than his expectations. Now he will get time to mature his policies in KPK and may be next few years he is in a position to form government in the centre.

Thus, Elections 2013 is best news for everybody, barring elements who want to destabilize the country and do not see democracy taking its roots. The regional and international environments also present a unique opportunity to our political leadership to take the country out of the present predicament. It’s time for them to display political maturity and grasp the given opportunities, instead of wasting further time in sit-ins / elections related issues, which must be left for the ECP to deal. It’s time to move on.

Can Pakistan rise to face the politics of terror? (My piece published in THE NEWS dated 4th May 2013)

The nation these days is witnessing worst kind of terrorism in Sindh, Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa (KP) and Balochistan, with the former ruling coalition partners comprising PPPP, MQM and ANP facing the brunt. Why this surge in terror related activities and to achieve what objective, is the question agitating everybody’s mind.

Some are of the view that TTP denounces democracy and the spate of terrorist attacks is aimed at derailing the democratic process, some feel that they are only targeting liberal parties to benefit the right and far right parties while there are people who smell a conspiracy to postpone the elections.

To me the bigger question is; Can our political leadership rise above their petty agendas to save Pakistan or are we, as a nation, destined to oblivion?

Before we seek to find an answer to above questions, I may reflect on 2008 elections during which militancy was also used as an instrument to influence the outcome, especially in Punjab. It started with Benazir’s assassination and, thereafter, we witnessed an unprecedented surge in terrorist related activities in Punjab and such environments were created that people yearned for peace.

PML-N sold the theme and, rightly or wrongly, convinced the masses that with change of the government, there would be an end to terrorism. Resultantly, they won the elections in Punjab. Thus, firstly, surge in terrorism before elections is not a new phenomenon and, secondly, this surge has a clear-cut objective.

Notwithstanding the fact that TTP takes responsibility for most of the acts of terrorism, the militants can be divided into two main groups - ideologically motivated, mostly funded by our friends in the Middle East and the other group sponsored by CIA (with RAW as their collaborators).

However, irrespective of their leanings, both these groups are pursuing agendas detrimental to Pakistan’s interests - while the ideologically motivated are trying to enforce their brand of Islam, denounce democratic dispensation and carry a soft corner for the far right, at least for the time being, the CIA-RAW sponsored militants are being used to breed instability in Pakistan in pursuit of differing objectives.

Unfortunately, these days both the groups are active in spreading terrorism for different reasons and hence the surge. I will start with the ideological group.

Historically, Saudi Arabia has been funding religious parties and certain militant organisations to enhance their sphere of influence in Pakistan. These religious parties, however, always disappointed them due to their dismal performance in elections. The Saudis got a major breakthrough when, during exile, the Sharifs stayed as their guests and developed a very intimate understanding. They now consider the Sharif family as ‘friends’ who could serve their interests in Pakistan. Zardari’s overt tilt towards Iran has further strengthened this bondage.

Thus, with perceived victory for Sharifs, the ideological group is unlikely to sabotage the elections, though they may facilitate the outcome by discouraging the liberal parties to campaign.

The other external stakeholder is the USA which is supposed to complete draw-down of forces from Afghanistan by the end 2014. Being a critical period, their preference would be the re-instatement of the PPPP-MQM-ANP coalition (the liberal group) which has served their interests well in the last five years. A technocrats’ government with ingress of their sponsored individuals would also be acceptable but, surely, they would not want a dispensation which creates hurdles in execution of their perceived plans for the region. As such, with PPPP trailing behind, postponement of elections and installation of a technocrats’ government with Zardari continuing as President would be their first preference. Failing which, in a post-election scenario, a weak, but friendly, coalition government would be acceptable. Even if that is also not possible, their effort would be to derail the process of smooth transition of power so that a favourable technocrats’ government could be installed.

Thus, the CIA-sponsored terrorists would aim at creating environment whereby, either the elections are postponed or if held, there is no smooth transition of power.

Realising the gravity of the situation, the COAS and the CJ have categorically stated that under no circumstances elections would be postponed. Though PPPP, ANP and MQM leadership still retain the option to sabotage the electoral process by boycotting the elections, it would be a wrong move as not much is lost if they correctly access the future political scenario. This time, ANP is likely to get sympathy vote and with rural Sindh’s vote bank divided, MQM may emerge as a leading party in Sindh. Other than these parties, Tahirul Qadri types may also make attempts to sabotage the elections by staging sit-ins. Such elements must be ruthlessly checked, onus of which lies on the CJ/caretaker government.

Pakistan’s ordeal would not be over even after the elections, as three distinct groups are likely to emerge in the political arena – PML-N and coalition partners, PPPP and coalition partner and PTI. Unfortunately, none of these distinct groups would be in a position to form the government independently. Imran Khan has already announced that he would not join any other party to form the government, leaving the other two groups to join hands, a rare possibility. As such, smooth transition of power may become exceedingly difficult, a situation which can be exploited by parties with vested interests to pursue their agendas.

In the obtaining scenario, unless sense prevails and the political leadership displays the kind of maturity required to take the country out of present quagmire, peace and stability in Pakistan would remain a farfetched dream, the terrorists would keep on flourishing with substantial inflows of money from their foreign sponsors and the establishment would continue to create enough space for itself to call the shots.

Can our political leadership deliver in such testing times, shun their individual agendas and take the country out of brewing turmoil, because if they fail, we as a nation are destined to oblivion.

 

Break up of Punjab is part of a larger agenda (My article published in THE NEWS dated 30 Jan 2013)

The NA is all set to present a bill for formulation of Bahawalpur Southern Punjab Province in its current session, comprising Bahawalpur, Multan, Dera Ghazi Khan Divisions and Bakkar, Mianwali Districts. Though the move is being ascribed as a political ploy of the ruling coalition in view of the forthcoming elections, yet possibility of a sinister design behind the effort cannot be ruled out. It may seem far-fetched to many but a critical analysis of happenings / events in the last five years would reveal that demand for division of Punjab by carving out a new province, especially in its proposed configuration, is part of a larger agenda of some of our top leaders, as well as, outside powers, especially USA-India Nexus which have long term interests in the region.

To elaborate, I may briefly highlight the USA-Indian agenda in the region and its implications for Pakistan. For implementation of their ‘containment of China’ strategy and intent to exploit the mineral/energy resources of Central Asia, certain pre-requisites must be met; (1) USA must gain and maintain foothold in Central Asia. For the purpose, it must have a secure corridor from the Arabian Sea to Central Asia i.e through Pakistan (2) Since, the USA sees India as a strategic partner in their ‘Grand Design’ for the region, it must also be given pre-eminence and provided a secure corridor to Afghanistan and Central Asia (3) By implication, Pakistan must act as a pliant state and not only expected to provide these corridors but also facilitate USA-Indian ingress into Central Asia, as demanded.

In pursuance of this agenda, USA has been able to exercise influence on Pakistan’s policy making by controlling the ruling elite. However, balkanization of Pakistan still remains an option with USA-India Nexus and Punjab, Pakistan’s centre of gravity in its present configuration, with nuclear weapons and strong Army, is considered as an impediment to such designs. As such, from their perspective Punjab’s strength must be diluted as a first step towards Pakistan’s balkanization (God forbid), if the situation so demands.

That be the agenda, one is perturbed to see how in the last few years deliberate attempts have been / are being made by leadership with vested interests to weaken Punjab. Its manufacturing industry has been deliberately denied gas and electricity, which is now at the brink of disaster. The agricultural output is gradually being affected by construction of new hydroelectric power projects, dams and link canals by India, to which the present government is turning a blind eye. After creation of proposed Bahawalpur South Punjab Province, the Indus River will also be delinked from the remaining Punjab, thus ultimately turning it into a wasteland.  

Thus, for those who are contemplating Pakistan’s balkanization, Punjab would not only be cut to size by its division but virtually rendered as an impotent entity without industry, depleted agricultural output and meagre other sources of income. In such a state, it would be totally dependent on others to survive and, as such, by compulsion act as a corridor for Indo-Afghan-Central Asia trade via Wagah to generate income – the foreign agenda will be fulfilled.

The configuration of the proposed Bahawalpur South Punjab Province is yet another indicator that some of those pursuing it are also catering for the scenario emanating from Pakistan’s possible balkanization (God Forbid). It seems that the same has been prepared on the assumption that with no industrial base, very little natural resources and meagre sources of income in the shape of agricultural output, it would be difficult for the proposed Bahawalpur South Punjab Province to survive independently and will have to depend on Sindh for energy and transit facilities. Thus, economic dependence, coupled with already existing cultural / political cohesion would provide strong basis for unification of Sindh and Bahawalpur South Punjab Province as one entity.

Accordingly, the new province has been configured to secure Sindh’s life-line by ensuring coverage of entire Indus River of the present Punjab. Secondly, it is being ensured that the proposed province links Sindh and KP to serve as a corridor from Arabian Sea / India to Afghanistan / Central Asia.

With no prominent Saraiki leader in the limelight, nobody should have a doubt as to who would occupy the driving seat in such a dispensation. Besides, after unification, their numerical differential with the Urdu speaking population of urban Sindh would increase further - Zardari & Co in total control with marginalized MQM.

The above scenario could be a figment of my imagination and many may not even consider it within the realm of possibilities but those who are supporting the idea of a new province in the proposed configuration must analyse the issue from all perspectives. It is not a matter which may be dealt with and supported on basis that ‘it sets a precedent to pursue our cause’, or bargained for ‘what is in it for us’, or adopt wait and see policy contemplating ‘how can we exploit the situation to our advantage’.

In my considered view, Punjab’s integrity must be preserved as Pakistan’s centre of gravity and if at all an odd province is to be carved out for convenience of masses, it must be done deliberately purely on administrative basis. Any precedence of creating provinces on ethnic grounds would set into motion many more such movements detrimental to Pakistan’s integrity.