In Pakistani Media, the U.S. Is a Target for Acrimony

Akram Shahid/Reuters

Supporters of a religious political party burned an effigy of President Obama at a rally in Hyderabad, Pakistan, on Tuesday.

By SALMAN MASOOD

Published: September 27, 2011

ISLAMABAD, Pakistan — The United States might still be weighing its options about how to deal with Pakistan, but many politicians, retired army generals and popular television talk show hosts here have already made up their minds that America is on the warpath with their country.

Multimedia

Losing the Media War in Pakistan

Related in Opinion

• Opinion: And Hate Begat Hate(September 11, 2011)

Connect With Us on Twitter

Follow@nytimesworldfor international breaking news and headlines.

Twitter List: Reporters and Editors

Readers’ Comments

Readers shared their thoughts on this article.

• Read All Comments (112) »

Such is the media frenzy and warmongering that popular talk show hosts have even begun discussing possible scenarios of how Pakistan should react if the United States attacks the country. One television news channel has even aired a war anthem.

Prime Minister Yusuf Raza Gilani has called on a conference of opposition political parties and government’s allies for Thursday to discuss the crisis. The government is also enlisting allies.

Islamabad, the capital, has seen a flurry of diplomatic activity with the visits of Chinese and Saudi officials. The American ambassador, Cameron Munter, has also met with President Asif Ali  Zardari and Foreign Secretary Salman Bashir.

After meeting with Vice Premier Meng Jianzhu of China on Tuesday, Mr. Gilani said that “China categorically supports Pakistan’s efforts to uphold its sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity,” an oblique reference aimed at the United States.

Earlier in an interview with Reuters, Mr. Gilani warned against any cross-border raids by American forces in Afghanistan. “We are a sovereign country,” Mr. Gilani was quoted as saying. “How can they come and raid in our country?”

Pakistan’s powerful army and intelligence chiefs, meanwhile, have conveyed their message through their posturing. Gen. Ashfaq Parvez Kayani, the army chief, canceled his Monday visit to Britain, stoking a sense of crisis.

On Sunday, General Kayani led a meeting with his top military commanders. No press statement was issued, but leaks to local media outlets warned of a “stern response” to any attack on Pakistan by American forces from Afghanistan.

A military official, privy to the meeting, said that the military commanders agreed to make efforts to defuse the situation and de-escalate the tensions with the United States. However, “certain decisions were taken, primarily of some defensive nature, in the event of a possible U.S. attack,” said the official, speaking on the condition of anonymity.

Lt Gen. Ahmed Shuja Pasha, the head of the country’s spy agency, the Directorate for Inter-Services Intelligence, or ISI, also flew Monday to meet with Saudi officials. Saudi Arabia is a close ally of Pakistan.

Javed Ashraf Qazi, a retired lieutenant general and former head of the ISI, said Tuesday that the United States is “pressurizing Pakistan to hide its own failures in Afghanistan,” a widely held view here. Mr. Qazi, now a senator, was quoted as saying that “U.S. officials often lie for their own interests” and as criticizing the American media for supporting what he called government propaganda against Pakistan.

The sharp display of anti-American sentiment is reflective of the deep divisions, mistrust and suspicions that exist between the countries.

The rambunctious electronic and print media have been rife with discussions about the possible rupture between the two troubled allies. Several retired army officials have taken on a very hard line, urging the government to break ties with the United States.

Such displays have been evident in the past few days, since Adm. Mike Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, made a statement describing the Haqqani network, a militant group based in Pakistan’s tribal areas, as a veritable arm of the ISI. He also charged that the ISI had supported an attack this month by Haqqani militants on the American Embassy in Afghanistan.

“Why cannot we snap diplomatic relations?” asked Shuja Khanzada, a retired colonel, during a live talk show on Tuesday on Dunya TV, a private television news network.

On Monday, Hamid Mir, the host of “Capital Talk,” a talk show on the popular news network Geo, started the show asking, “Is United States going to attack on the ground in Pakistan?”

Mr. Mir, who has a penchant for sensationalism, asked Asma Jahangir, the president of the Supreme Court Bar Association, what would happen if, in response to an American attack, Pakistan blocked the NATO supply lines that pass through the country for the Afghan war.

Ms. Jahangir rebuked the host. “America hasn’t launched any attack yet, and you are talking this way,” Ms. Jahangir said. Instead, she urged Pakistanis to reflect on where they have gone wrong.

Earlier in the show, another participant, Abdul Qayum, a retired lieutenant general, said that an American attack was a possibility.

When another participant, Farukh Saleem, a columnist and widely quoted analyst, criticized the local media by saying that it had “put more fuel on the fire,” General Qayum interjected and said Admiral Mullen’s statement was an insult to the whole nation.

“You cannot trust them,” General Qayum said of the Americans. “There is a history of betrayal.”

In another talk show, “Khari Baat” on Dunya TV, Lt. Gen. Hamid Gul, a former ISI chief, said that American threats were actually a blessing in disguise, as they had united the whole nation.

General Gul said the United State wants to give archrival India a “proxy role” in Afghanistan and American actions now risked the “dangers of a third world war.”

In an interview, Enver Baig, a former senator, said that the threatening American statements “resulted in gluing all political parties together.”

He added, “U.S. elections are approaching closer and Americans want a safe and respectable exit from Afghanistan and are scapegoating Pakistan,” echoing a widespread perception in Pakistan.

“The majority of the public sentiment is anti-American despite the fact that the U.S. is the biggest donor to Pakistan,” Mr. Baig said. “The U.S. has not been able to convert this into good will. American P.R. in Pakistan is very poor.”

Ismail Khan contributed reporting from Peshawar, Pakistan.

Change, credibility and popular appeal will define the new politics of Pakistan: "Kaptaan, the country’s most popular leader": Article in Express Tribune

Change, credibility and popular appeal will define the new politics of Pakistan: "Kaptaan, the country’s most popular leader": Article in Express Tribune

Kaptaan, the country’s most popular leader By Rasul Bakhsh Rais Published: July 13, 2011 The writer is professor of political science at LUMS rasul.rais@tribune.com.pk There are a number of changes in the substructure of Pakistani politics and society that no insightful observer of Pakistan can escape. The question is, what do they mean for the old ruling classes of Pakistan, which are grouped into two major political parties? The first notable change is that the old coalitions of the elite, assembled under two dynastic parties, have lost credibility and the trust and confidence of the larger number of Pakistani citizens. One may wonder why this isn’t reflected in the elections, since the same flock keeps getting elected. An explanation may be that the politics of patronage, at the expense of public interest and the public exchequer, along with the massive illegal wealth that most of the members of assemblies have made, are major factors in determining the outcome of electoral contests in their favour. Thanks to the broad reach of the electronic media, from cities to villages and hamlets, the true character of the old elite stands exposed. In popular perceptions, the image and reality of the old coalitions as thugs, robber barons and thieves converge. Another factor that will definitely go against them is the pace of relative economic prosperity in the agricultural sector in the rural areas that has produced a very large rural middle class. This class is likely to vote independently of traditional family, clan or caste patterns and think of larger issues of governance, corruptions and who can provide better leadership. Economic changes in other countries have translated into fresh social and political alignments; consider for example the rise of the Hindu right in India or the Justice and Development Party in Turkey. Both represent the rethinking of old political elites that survived on myths of charismatic leaders and their political legacies. The second important change is the youth factor in Pakistan, which is not impressed by the quality and character of the political leadership dominating the major or even minor political parties, including the religious parties. They juxtapose Pakistan with the global landscape and see the failings of our traditional ruling elite. The youth in Pakistan is better educated, more enlightened and deeply patriotic, more so than previous generations; they want to get their country back on the rails of progress and modernity. Young people disregard locality, province, region and ethnicity to support Imran Khan, andlook toward him as the only hope. This is a big loss for the traditional ruling parties that can only assemble ruffian musclemen in party nurseries, who speak through wall chalking land and guns and cash are doled out to them by party bosses. The third important change is that, according to a poll, Imran Khan today has emerged as the most popular leader of Pakistan (68 per cent), leaving Mian Nawaz Sharif (63 per cent) and Asif Ali Zardari (11 per cent) miles behind, according to the Pew Research Centre, one of the most credible institutions for global opinion polls. The question is if and how Imran Khan will convert these changes into a political advantage in the next parliamentary elections. My gut feeling is he will. He has energy, commitment and popular appeal. The great kaptaan presents a very clear agenda of change that no other leader or party can match. Change, credibility and popular appeal will define the new politics of Pakistan, which the kaptaan represents. Published in The Express Tribune, July 14th, 2011.

Tsunami and Saleem Safi (a rejoinder): by Adnan Randhawa

Imran Khan in capital talk - 31 may 2012

Benami Transactions well explained

Benami Law

First Law itself is never to be blamed. Be it any  law, the law can be followed and can be misused with equal legal standings before the court of law.
Benami is a “certain position” that the plaintiff  or defendant takes before the court,  the purpose is to protect the rights of lawful owner, be it a plaintiff or a defendant.
There are certain legal situations arises in man’s life when “Benami” is used to protect the rightful claimant of the property/assets.
Let us first be clear about Benami position. the principle states that Mr “A” can purchase Property/Assets in name of Mr “B” under “given situations” with “good faith” and that he can prove with evidence that he is the hard earner of that property which he kept under else’s name.
For example Benami can be used to avoid the claim of Haq Shufa (right of neighbouring land owner comes first, but under certain situations it can be avoided, to establish a stronger position benami position is used).
2)  Keeping property on relatives/family name in case the investor is working abroad but wants to have assets in home country. it can be moveable and unmoveable property/assets.
3) To protect the rights of unborn child in which a father transfer’s the property to wife for the unborn child, but situation arises when they get divorced,  so the property given to wife has its rightful claimant that is the father of that unborn child. (Transfer can be reverted)
4)  If Mr “A” puts the property in name of his wife/mother/brother under “good faith” to have trust/love grow in the family. however, his act would never change the rightful owner of the property which is Mr A in this case.
I have done a case in which son kept his property in his mother’s name out of good faith for his family, but when his mother died, his brothers and sisters claimed that the property in her name is inherited property  so they also have a share in it, so we claimed benami in this case to protect the rightful owner…  so the motive to claimant/plaintiff  in taking benami position should always be “good faith” and that he can prove before the court of law that the property/assets are his hard earned.
Another thing that needs to be clear is that benami is either claimed or proved.  In no case of Transfer of property Act you will find the word benami. its a claimed position not a law itself. so it can not  be used in transfer of property documents.
Now there are certain situations when benami is used to hide corruption and property/assets made through illegal source of income.
Coming to the case of ImranKhan.
ImranKhan’s position is that he bought the property from Jemima’s money. his intention(good faith) was to buy a house from his own money, but he havn’t had it at that time so he decided to borrow the required money from Jemima, since the money used was from Jemima therefore, he  decided its better to keep it on her name (maybe he thought he would gift her anyway or that it would be a token to his good faith towards his wife) so as soon as his flat got sale in UK, he gave back the borrowed money to Jemima.
Unfortunately they got divorced, Jemima had no intention to keep the property (as it was given to her by IK so that they can have a family life there= intention/goodfaith) therefore, Jemima transferred the property back to ImranKhan which he bought for themselves and kept in Jemima’s name. now using the word benami as explained earlier is either claimed or proved and can no where we find it being mentioned in transfer of property act, therefore Jemima claimed in her Affidavit that it was a benami transaction which is to say that the  real owner is ImranKhan, as he paid off the borrowed money to jemima already, and that he intended to buy the property for “themselves as a family” but when they got divorced Jemima out of good faith made no false claim over the Bani gala property and wrote in affidavit that the real owner is Imran Khan and that he kept the house in my name out of good faith.
We all know that ImranKhan has no corruption charges over him,  that his sources of income are not hidden from anyone, and that he can prove all his financial transactions, in fact he has already put all documents before the the public in a press conference.
The point UmarCheema used is that “why he used benami position?”. the answer to this poor position is “why wouldn’t he to claim his rightful and lawful property/asset?”
Giving further example to explain UmerCheem’s position, “The contract law says that contract can only take place, if the “object” in the contract is lawful, you dont argue that contact law should not be used, similarly situations where Benami position is to be claimed for rightful purposes, one cannot argue that why someone used a benami position.  he/she used it cause its their right.
ImranKhan says that people who buy property in the names of their gardeners, guards, driver or any relative to hide their corruption and money earned from illegal sources shall be curbed through amendment in this regard. when he says Benami law shall be ebolished, he means Transfer of property Act shall be amended.  that is not to abolish the benami position but to protect those who have rightful claims and curtail those who misuse it.
We do advice everyone to buy property/assets in name of their wives/children to enjoy family life.
If anyone still has confusions regarding Benami please contact us at @TheRealLahori

Imran Khan : Next Man In ? Documentary On Al Jazeera

Turkey: The model for Pakistan

Turkey: The model for Pakistan

By Fraz Shafique    |
It is no secret that the Turkish people have an enormous reverence for Mahomed Ali Jinnah or Cinnah as written in Turkish, honoring him with Cinnah Avenue, a major artery in Ankara.  It should not be surprising as both Jinnah and the founder of modern-day Turkey, Ataturk, were modernist Muslims educated and tailored in the western traditions.  Both dedicated their lives to uplift the economic and political cause of their people.   The similarities between the two men also include both being members of minority communities within the religion of Islam.  Jinnah was an Ismaili-Shia, a community following Imam Agha Khan while Ataturk, born in Salonika, was a Muslim of Albanian-Macedonian parents.  Their roots outside of mainstream Islam were significant in determining their modernist, secular ideology which was accutely aware of the 'tyranny of the majority' and desiring of equal rights for those whom demographics did not favor.  But more than this, it was the economic degradation of their communities that encouraged them to lead their people.  In pre-1947 India, the Muslim population was primarily illiterate with little or no significant role in commerce, which was almost exclusively owned by a non-Muslim majority.  Jinnah however, was part of the coastal Ismaili Muslim community which unlike most Muslims, was more interested in enterprise and bourgeoise professions and thus could grasp the need to set up a state - be it within the Indian union or without - whereby the members of his Muslim community could have opportunities allowing them to gain a stake and representation in the economic system. In similar respects, the Young Turk movement, of which Ataturk was a member, also aimed to establish a state where the Muslims held economic power.  Due to the abhorent decadence of the Khilafat-e-Usmania, the Muslim community had become the equivalent of 'white trash' of the Khilafat while the minority communities like the Armenians and Greeks prospered as they opted to adopt western legal codes.  The biographies of Ataturk and the early 20th century indicate how the non-Muslim Ottoman neighborhoods were well lit with paved roads and had the best schools and hospitals.  It was Ataturk's desire to see the majority Muslim community achieve the same modern life style denied to them - a denial he and many of the Young Turk movement linked to the Khilafat's archaic legal codes and traditions.  Unfortunately, while Turkey has stuck to the ideals of Ataturk, Pakistan has quickly forgotten Jinnah's almost single-handed struggle to build a prosperous nation.  While the Islamic-bent AKP party of Turkey today ferociously supports Turkey's union with the European Union as part of Ataturk's modernist legacy, Pakistan is fraught with internecine civil war, religious bigotry, a self-destructive obesession against India, and whose Army is now wrecking havoc against its own people in the FATA region, for a war fought on someone else's behalf.  Whereas Turkey has always stood up for its national interests and been the only country to militarily attack Europe since WW II (through a military assault  it forcefully occupied 40% of Cyprus in the 1970's) and refused $25 billion in aid from the United States to assist in the war against Iraq, Pakistan has capitulated in a dramatically tragic manner to the whims of foreign powers.  While Jinnah and Ataturk had many similarities and would not mind enjoying a glass of Turkish wine if they met, there is a massive gulf between the leadership of Pakistan and Turkey today.  What can Pakistan learn from the successful model adopted by Turkey?  What does modern day Turkey have to teach us? Prime Minister Erdogan's AKP party started its journey assisting the poor members of the urban Turkish landscape.  One of the projects was to offer bread at break-even cost to the poor who were severely effected by hyper inflation.  The scheme became so successful, that private bakeries went out of business.  More importantly it catapulted the AKP party (then known as Welfare Party) into the mainstream of Turkish politics.  In a similar attempt, Chairman Khan's Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf is also attempting to find resonance amongst the urban poor of Pakistan who are the suffering from exorbitant food inflation.  Thus the Sasta Tanduur project has been set up in much the same fashion as the Turkish party's.  However, the Sasta Tanduur project goes a step further by offering subsidized roti which results in each tanduur incurring a daily loss.  This loss is expected to be fulfilled by the appeal for donations voiced by Chairman Khan.  Aside from aggressively reaching out to those bruised by faulty economic policies, the other major example to learn from the Turkish Republic is to stand up to foreign powers.  Completely redefining the war we are currently fighting is critical as persisting with policies in which our military is massacring our own people will lead us down the path of self-destruction.  Finally and most importantly, the fact that Turkey has pursued a pro-development economic policy beneficially tied to the West without forfeiting its sovereignty is worth emulating.  Today, Turkish consumer electronics firms rank among the top three in terms of sales in many of the household product lines.  Standing up for the poor and against foreign powers are the hallmarks of good leadership which Chairman Khan has shown and which our nation needs to adopt.  While we cannot be a replica copy of the Turkish Republic, the fundamentals of standing up to western powers and focusing on the have-nots of our society deserve to be copied so that one day, Pakistan too will  mirror the glorious image of its founder, Mahomed Ali Jinnah.

Countering Taliban Terrorism

Countering Taliban Terrorism

By Fraz Shafique
The celebrations for the restoration of the Chief Justice had not even begun and the nation was gifted with the exorbitant rise in the plague known as the Taliban.  The lack of justice, collapse of the educational system, the failure to address the basic problems and defend the rights of the disenfranchised had created a vacuum in the state apparatus.  The failures of successive government institutions over the past sixty years had become ingrained in the psyche of the population.  No one seemed to rise up and offer a constructive, progressive and viable alternative.  In this vacuum, it was thus not surprising that criminal elements would rear their ugly heads.  The lure of quick money for the unskilled, uneducated and indoctrinated in a state that had given up its responsibilities was too powerful and easy to give up. Just like criminals have a field day when security lapses, the Taliban and their decadent beliefs had a field day in wrecking havoc in Swat.  Preventing children from recieving polio vaccinations, preventing girls from attaining education and banning music are some of the most assinine examples of their decadent ideology.  While understanding this phenomenon is critical to finding a solution, harping about the failures of the past helps no one.  Often our political leaders stoop to constantly regurgitating the need to 'understand' the rise of criminals and Taliban.  This explanation at some point starts to sound like a justification and becomes not only counter productive but self-defeating.  Such arguments lead one into a corner.  For example, earlier this year, some opposition politicians were eager to highlight that there is a difference between the problems in Swat and those of FATA.  We were told that the militants in Swat are fighting for their brand of religion (and supposedly, justice).  In contract, the fight in FATA was a result of the spillover from the failed policies of NATO.  Yet, we find the same politicians today, perhaps to score points, link the fight in Swat to drone attacks in FATA because it has become impossible to give credible justification to the loonies operating in black turbans.  We all hear from our elders of how after partition in 1947, the courts, the police and the bureaucracy of the nation worked with extreme efficiency.  The neutrality ingrained by the colonial system in the rules of governance was still in tact.  Rulers, including the generals, took care to follow the law.  The judges were seen as figures of worthy of extreme respect.  Justice was done and seen to be done in most realms of Pakistan.  If today, that British-built system of justice no longer provides relief, should we all pick up guns and start become, looters, murderers and barbarians?  Based on the constant rant bordering on 'justification' of rise of criminals, should Punjabis, who remember better days in the early stages of Pakistan, start to arm themselves?  If these politicians were 'revolutionaries', then it could make sense.  But they are self-proclaimed borderline reformist at best.  Including most of us.  We should act accordingly. It seems the argument presented for Swat's demise to Talibanism is amateurish and increasingly sounds like a point-scoring exercise.  Particularly if the fascist policies of Taliban are not treated with the same vehemence as those practiced in Karachi by Altaf Hussain. It is unfortunate that we refuse to see the synonyms between the two fascist entities and instead treat them with unequal ferocity.  In fact, the Taliban were out rightly rejected by the people of Swat in what everyone considers was a free and fair election in 2008.  Voters went to the ballot box despite threats of being bombed by the Taliban, kicked out parties lead by religious personalities and brought in ANP and PPP.   But knowing about the rise of Taliban terrorism is only one side of the coin.  Pakistan's internal collapse was all the more notorious only because of the support of militant outfits that were operating at will in locations outside Pakistan.  To date, there is no blunt condemnation of the role of the Pakistan establishment in arming and abetting the 'jihadis'.  One the one hand the governance system was allowed to collapse and on the other, the state supported the mushrooming growth of decadence inspired by religion. That decadence was 'acceptable' as long as it was directed outside the frontiers, supported the local dictators or foreign powers.  Pakistan's policy of aiding the rebels in Afghanistan at behest of the West with full financial, moral, cinematic (Rambo III) and political backing is still considered the 'right policy' by many in the country.  But today's war on terror suddenly seems unacceptable.  While the 'war on terror' should never have been Pakistan's war, the argument becomes difficult to sustain when the state has been complicit in perpetuating 'non-state' actors to commit their violent acts across international borders.  Be it those in Afghanistan in the 1980's or in Kashmir in the 1990's.  These 'non-state' actors and those supporting them only hurt Pakistan's ability to become a self-sustaining and respectable nation.  The Afghan policy only harmed Pakistan in the 1980's under Zia.  The same is true of Musharaf's policies in FATA.  Unless we make blanket rejection of our past policies undertaken at the behest of and for the support of non-democratic and external forces, we cannot convincingly claim that this is not our war.  To a large extent we are reaping what we sowed.  If we are to understand the 'problem' we need to call out to amend our past policies as well as reform the state institutions.  Taliban ideology is the manifestation of all that is wrong in Pakistan and is the 'jahaliya' of the era.  It is the 'dajjal' of our time.  The decadent ideology of the Taliban offers nothing but a relegation to a life of swine-hood.  Without a vision where justice is easily accessible, where a standardized school system will not disappoint, where basic health facilities are available, where peasants till their own land and the feudal lord has been decapitated, where men and women learn skills to become economically independent, where minds are taught to be progressive, to love and further knowledge, to make music, poetry, art, to create, without encouraging and establishing these ingredients and mechanisms, the war against barbaric Taliban terrorism cannot be won.  Let's be clear.  Military might must be used with vicious force when barbarians forcefully overthrow the sacred legal system of Pakistan. We must support this with the same passion as we support the trial of Musharaf under Article 6 for subverting the constitution.  But military might will be futile if it is not backed by plans for a better system as sadly is currently the case.  The spate of terrorist attacks which have begun across Pakistan threaten each of us.  Today is our test - just like the two years of struggle to restore the Chief Justice was our test.  But now, we must go further and re-imagine Pakistan. This is where the role of all political parties becomes vital as the Army cannot win wars. Political parties, rather than engaging in point scoring exercises, should develop constructive models that offer us something more than apologetic arguments for reasons for the existence of swine known as the Taliban.  Already we can see the superior courts lead by Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhary working to clean out the corrupt practices and personalities in the judicial system.  The uplifting declaration that backlog of cases be cleared and that a case should be resolved within a year gives tremendous hope that this system, our system as ennunciated by the Constitution of 1973 is far superior to anything anyone has ever implemented in this land.  The judiciary needs the focused support of all political parties as the CJ cannot clean house on his own.  The political parties are the entities that can provide the support.  If political parties like Maududi's progeny continue to obfuscate the issue, they are becoming an obstacle to the next critical steps in achieving judicial independence and deserve to be labelled as 'Taliban sympathisers'.  It is surprising that the political parties who were at the forefront of the movement for justice over the past two years have lapsed into bickering over whether Taliban terrorism has justification or not.  Instead of this apologetic stance, it would be much better to continue supporting the cause for an independent judiciary by remaining true to this agenda and sticking with it, supporting it and condemning, opposing and rejecting anyone, anywhere in Pakistan who tries to destroy this agenda - be they in black turbans or in khakis.  If Pakistan Tehree-e-Insaf and other important national parties take this stand, they will take the air out of any argument for an armed lunacy that is seeking to prop up a decadent and obscene system supposedly practiced in the past.  We have a better system and it needs the support of all members of society - parliament, opposition, judiciary, military, bureaucracy and civil society to help reform and work.  Pakistan's people are our most precious assets.  It is humiliating that we have to resort to armed force to restore order.  Even more that millions of our people have to become homeless and live in a limbo.  They need all of our support.  Rather than constantly be swayed by these painful individual events, we should seek to tear out the source of this malaise.  Supporting the process of democracy, no matter how flawed and upholding the constitution is the first step.  Continuing to support our judicial system (rather than the fairy tales of the past) is another step.  Anyone who blatantly rejects the constitution of Pakistan while simultaneously refusing to bring change via democratic means reflects a growth in cancer.  It should be dealt with accordingly.

Can We Fight back: Pakistan

Can We Fight back: Pakistan

By Rabia Zia

UK Coordinator, Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf

Pakistan has been oscillating between civilian and military rule since its inception in 1947. The Military has, by far, been the stronger party with 33 years of rule notched up versus 27 years of civilian government. Many problems associated with this oscillation have reached critical mass, hampering the state's sovereignty and stability as Pakistan faces numerous issues with no quick-fix resolution in sight. President Pervez Musharraf took power in Oct 1999 as a military dictator who finally removed his uniform in Nov 2007 after having re-established himself as the civilian President of Pakistan for a 5 year period, and having declared a state of Emergency - in fact a second coup.

This illegitimate act was carried out by removing Chief Justice Chaudary Iftikhar and 60 judges of the Supreme Court who would have raised their voices against a serving Army General becoming the head of State - this is not allowed under the Constitution. After their ouster, President Musharraf's hand picked judiciary legalized him as the elected President. The elections held in February 2008 took place right after the assassination of head of Pakistan's Peoples Party (PPP), Benazir Bhutto, under the puppet judiciary and a questionable electoral commission; however the people of Pakistan still ended up fiercely opposing Musharraf's stalwart party 'Muslim League Q' (the King's party) and granting victory to the PPP, Pakistan Muslim League Noon (PML-N) and others.

The clear mandate for the ruling coalition included the reinstatement of the Chief Justice, an independent judiciary and removal of President Musharraf. Since the formation of the coalition government in Feb 2008 led by PPP, President Pervez Musharraf resigned to save himself from impeachment.  It is very clear that the coalition Government has been unsuccessful on a number of fronts as it is a continuation of Musharraf policies and governance; it has been unable to implement the electorate's mandate, improve the state of economy and enhance the country's stability. We do not have an independent judiciary; there seems to be no clear center of governance i.e. parliament VS the establishment. There are external threats at the borders with ongoing fighting; there are related issues surrounding detainees/missing people. There are suicide bombings targeting the army and security forces of country as well as civilian targets.

On the domestic front, there is turmoil generated by food and oil crisis as inflation spikes and a severe energy crisis triggered by inadequate infrastructure seen in frequent power shutdowns. After nearly a year in the saddle, Pakistan's new civilian government has not been able to tackle these issues. Pervez Musharraf was behind Pakistan's compliance with the US, which includes allowing the US Government to set up bases within Pakistan. He is also behind the use of Pakistan Army's excessive force against the people of Waziristan/Bajaur. These policies had caused his popularity and that of the Army to suffer a sharp decline. Now that Musharraf has resigned, our party's stand is for Musharraf to face trial for all the crimes and irregularities committed against the People of Pakistan and the Constitution eg, missing people, judiciary etc; the war on our borders – whether it is ours or someone else's war is resulting in killing of the innocent people & making them homeless. We are still waiting for justice.

Economic melt down and its solutions by Zaid Khan (PTI UK)

Economic melt down and its solutions by Zaid Khan (PTI UK)

The current regime has made an irrecoverable loss to Pakistan Economy like their predecessors. We are in real financial crisis due to very poor financial management. Government has failed to deliver and that is why overwhelming majority public sentiment is going against them, rather more in favour of judiciary, media and establishment especially due to consistent positive role they have played over last few years. Local debts has soared to 9 trillion rupees from 4.8 trillion rupees in 2008 and foreign debts soared to 56 billion US$ from 40 billion US$ in year 2008. We are struggling with energy deficiency, trade deficit, undocumented economy, massive tax avoidance especially in agriculture, and heavy debt corporations. Most of the tax collection comes with indirect taxation which increases gap between rich and poor. The country cannot continue in this way and we have to address these issues immediately and in responsible way. Otherwise, either country will default or we will be paying a large share of our income in paying debts in the budget like this year we are paying 873 billion in debts instalment in total budget of 3259, which comes to 27%, which due to floods and WOT can go upto 1 Trillion rupees. Already, government has reduced its GDP growth rate 5.5% to 2.5%, whereas India and China has forecasted 8.5% and 10% respectively. Let us discuss them one by one and see possible solutions for them.

Low Tax Collection - We are one of the lowest taxes paying nation in the world. Our tax collection is above 9 percent whereas India which is our neighbouring country has 15 percent tax collection. It is generally believed that we can further expand this tax upto 15 percent by expanding tax percentage to 1.2 annually in next five years. Massive corruption controlling in FBR, and government organizations can generate us 500 – 750 Billion Rupees. Agriculture makes 19% contribution in our GDP yet its tax contribution is very low due to mind set of feudal class which unfortunately ruling this country from last sixty 63 years.

Heavy Circular Debt Corporations. We have four gigantic government corporations, where we spent huge money of tax payers to keep them running. For this year we have allocated 250 billions to bail them out. Among them, only PEPCO is paid 180 billion this year. Others include Railway, Steel Mill, and PIA. Massive corruption, mismanagement, incompetent, and overriding merit on higher level and recruiting staff on political grounds are the route causes of these corporations running in losses over the many years. During recent financial melt down in US and UK many of banks and automotive industry has been bailed out in 2008 but some of them has already paid back and some will be paying back in next years. Contrary to that, we have been bailing out these corporations over the years but they are never able to payback. In fact their debts and losses has increases substantially over the years.

Energy Crisis – Economy of Pakistan has suffered a lot due to energy shortage. Musharaf regime failed to foresee the needs for development of country on long term basis. Present Government is so busy in defending and proving her innocent from corruption and NRO that it has lost the focus completely. Instead, the solution they bring in shape of Rental Power Project has added to our problem with sky rocketing electricity prices with hyper inflation. We cannot avoid construction of Bhasha and Kalabagh dams along side some small dams. Government has not allocated any funds for these projects and world financial institutions have refused to support the project. The one solution can be government bonds which now a days are very good solutions. Many governments have issued these bonds like US, Ireland, Spain etc. We already issued these bonds successfully in Musharaf regime, which I think would be a good way to have balance your sheet. Government can take advantage of that and can float 5-10 years or even longer period bond for raising funds but this should be the sole purpose of bonds not for paying our debts.

War on Terror has also adversely affected our budget. We have been close ally for USA and NATO but the loss we have suffered due to this loss is around 68 billion US$. We did not get enough compensation in this regard. As a result government has to cut development budget and take more loans. We should present our case in US and EU either to waive off major loans or defer it until this war is over or reduced to certain limit. We can continue this war in our own interest and taking into account ground realities and budget restraints, but not on their terms and condition. The simple formula would be to fight against those who challenge government writ and are unwilling to come on talk table without compromising our economically and national integrity. Giving path for NATO supplies and using our bases also not well charged. So, this is the time where we should rethink our strategy and renegotiate things if we have made commitment earlier. If WOT goes over and above our allocated budget, we should convince US and allies to support and provide extra budget rather than burdening our nation. Due to this WOT the both foreign and local investment has stopped which is also cause of less job opportunities, more inflation and slowing GDP rate. The foreign investment was around 8 billion US$ which has now shrank to 2 billion US$. Present floods has just pushed us back many decades by destroying a major portion of infrastructure, wiping out crops and loss of livestock and more importantly properties of affected people.

Trade Deficit and Foreign Reserves - Our imports are forecasted a 32 Billion US$ whereas exports are 20 Billion US$. There are sectors where we can make significant improvements. Textile sector is struggling due to energy crisis, so we should have priority to meet their energy crisis. Also, due to target killing and unrest in Karachi, many of our trade targets cannot be meet. Over the years, oversees Pakistanis has really helped economy to be stable and to create a balance for budget. Government can minimize and waive off the charge for money transfers and can encourage Pakistani local banks or to collaborate with international banks to send money online, which will really boost reserves. I believe, we can significantly increase these figures. Already we have seen a major increase due to little facilitation by banks but there is always room for improvement. R&D in agriculture can also be very handful where we can significantly increase our production of crops and can reduce trade deficit.

The World Financial Institutions – We are borrowing a large amount of money from IMF, World Bank, Asian Bank on their terms and condition as we don’t have any program to increase our revenue. Everyone wants guarantee for their money and because neither government has plan to decrease deficit or increase income nor there is any sense of responsibility to address these issues. The only way of increasing revenue is through utility bills, which is quite dangerous for long term. As a result, they force us to accept their program and we have no choice but to accept their terms and conditions. For example, we should reduce non-development expenditure like reducing President and PM Secretariat, reducing number of Ministers and Advisers and their perks. All foreign tours be made via ordinary business class and PM and their cabinet to be resided in embassy. No special protocol inside and outside the country. There is very important aspect of perks is that we should monetise all the perks in all government departments so that no one should misuse the facilities. If the government leads from the front, this can be implemented in other institutions like Police, Judiciary and Armed Forces.

I have seen many Ministers, Economic experts, and talk shows anchor talking about the problems, but no one has ever come with the solution. In my opinion, we always have solutions for any problem unless we are willing to handle the problem.

For corporations, firstly, we should remove the top management and strong anti-corrupt mechanism and should make them independent. Secondly, we should invite 10 students (five each from abroad and local) from universities doing either Master’s or PhD to do the research on these corporations and come up with robust solutions. If, this solution does not look viable, and there is no chance, that these corporations can be reverted into profitable organization, it would be better to privatize them instead of bailing them every year from tax payer money. However, government should not give them free hand in their pricing mechanism, so they cannot charge consumer for hyper super profit.

All public office holders must declare their assets and what taxes they have paid on them. Government should announce a commission for reporting unpaid tax to any individual. Auditing firms should also be monitored very carefully not to be lobbied by big organizations and political influence to avoid taxes. There are also many sectors which are still not part of economy like Doctors, Big Retailers, Property Tax and Agriculture tax etc which potentially can generate 100-200 billion rupees initially. All land registration process should be computerised through NADRA. In fact, we should have a database of the each individual which should be linked with NADRA, so we should use it for our planning and scrutiny purpose in future.

Where we can save money and reduce our budget debt:

1. Privatization of government corporations can save us 250 billion rupees.
2. Agriculture tax can generate 100 billion
3. Improvement and increase in tax base up to 12% of Federal Board of Revenue can generate 500-600 billion rupees.
4. Austerity measures in non-development expenditures can save us 10 billion rupees. This should be started from President and PM Secretariat.

We have best of financial experts and reputable economic managers. The only thing we lack is the spirit, if the government decides that it has to do it, I hope things will start to move in right direction and in few months time we will see their better results. May Almighty give us wisdom to make this country a real welfare state, a dream seen by Allam Iqbal and Quaid-e-Azam Muhammad Ali Jinah and fulfilled by us!

Political Game: Insafians, old Politicians and matter of Perception by Adeel Ahmed

Political Game: Insafians, old Politicians and matter of Perception by Adeel Ahmed

Pakistan Tehreek Insaf (PTI) has now put its foot in  middle tier, things have been changed, and perhaps PTI approach towards Pakistan Politics had to change after 30^th October 2011, but the human nature to resist change and it's hesitation to accept change is deep rooted in ideological Insafians and hence, their concerns. The ideological Insafians, our assets, has every right to question the so called “deviation from ideology”; ideology of change, ideology to bring new politics for which they have struggled so hard since 1995. From where I view the new scenario of PTI politics there is no “deviation from ideology” but “shift of approach” or in fact the new approach as PTI just entered into main stream politics. For few months, I have Interacted with many Insafian, face to face and via web forum, and have observed their thoughts on the approach of PTI leadership and their political moves. This piece of writing is just to paint a picture, sketching the thoughts of Insafians and PTI leadership. This writing may not give verdict in conclusion but at least will allow Insafians and Leaders to put their foot in each other shoes.

Psychology of Insafians:                                  

In one word it is “idealistic”; willing to bring change with ideal candidates who are sincere, honest and educated. They don't find any room for conventional politicians, and to some “old” and “corrupt” are actually synonyms. Whenever, any conventional politician joins PTI, it doesn’t sound good to them. Most of them do not understand the rural constituency politics and to them every landlord is feudal. PTI leadership needs to understand here the psychology of their followers and fortunately or unfortunately, they have to deal with very diverse voters. They need to comprehend that unlike the dedicated voters of MQM in areas of Karachi or loyal voters of Bhutto's PPP in parts of Sindh, the support for PTI will be a direct function of its policies. The young and literate voter will take no time to distance himself from PTI if it feels that it's deviating from its initial promises. PTI is true national party, it doesn’t represent any province or ethnicity, it’s positive and good for Pakistan but it has its own complexity when talking about issues. Like it is quite easier for PML to support “Kala Bagh Dam” as its vote bank comprises Punjab or its quite easy decision for PPP to support “Siraiki Province” or for “MQM” to talk about local government system as it only has to deal with urban areas but when it comes to National Party like PTI with a vote bank split all over country, the decision of national interest keeping vote bank intact is quite difficult. Similarly, PTI is not a left wing or right wing party, its followers comprises diverse ideology. If PML alliance with JI or PPP alliance with ANP, their voters will not have any issue but if PTI alliance with JI, clear split will be observed in the opinions of Insafians. It is a very delicate situation for PTI due to it's varied support but at the moment, it should take pride in the fact that nation is showing trust in them.

Traditional Politicians and PTI

Joining of traditional politicians is hot debate and arguments on both sides are convincing. Infact, again it’s a matter of diverse back grounds. Insafians belong to big cities usually do not have idea of rural constituency politics. It’s quite easy to say that PTI shall have new candidates in such constituencies but unfortunately, due to the current failed system in country, it all depends on candidate. Even the seasoned political parties like PPP and PML, having traditional vote bank, cannot afford to have weak candidates. Actually, due to failure in system, its influential person in rural areas who sort out the problems and issues of people like dealing with local thana, patwari, etc. Neither people are willing to vote any weak person there nor they expect such person is able to deal with thana, patwari etc. They will only vote influential person and they are not bother to think about the economical, educational policies. I am not saying that it is a case with every person in rural area and small town but it is a fact. Also keep in mind the strong “bradari system” and the fact that normally educated people, other than politicians, does not bother to have large social circle in constituency. The constituencies are also designed such that many urban area constituencies comprise a big part of rural areas. The comparison of Bhutto era from now is not justifiable. If PTI is satisfied with 20-25 NA seats from urban areas and act as a pressure group like MQM, then it may strict to the stance that only new candidates will be given tickets but if PTI is sketching on whole canvas and looking to gain majority in National Assembly then it has to take influentials in rural areas. Insafians need to understand the engineering of electoral politics and constituency’s politics.

Pros and Cons of Traditional Politicians

Definitely, the benefit of old traditional politicians is more seats in house and opportunity to PTI to implement its agenda. PTI cannot implement agenda without having majority in assembly. The primary detriment is the appearance of PTI i.e. “Change”. People will ask that how old politicians will bring change. It will dent the perception, which matters most in politics. However, even if we ignore the issue of perception, PTI may also have to face some real problems after the inclusion of traditional politicians. If we look within PTI, there may be the conflict of old PTI leadership and the new entrants. The chemistry is not likely to match but here is the duty of top leadership to define boundaries/tasks of each office bearers and to manage conflicts. Without conflicts there is no organization but conflict management is the duty of top leadership. Further, for politician there is only one strength i.e. no. of seats. Without seat, even Mian Azhar could not cement his place in PML-Q and it is a fact that after election results the importance level of various leaders will manipulate. I have no doubt that strength of old PTI leadership depends on no. of seats they or new faces in politics able to win. If a group of old traditional politicians, recently joined or will join, in PTI will win more seats then other nominees of PTI then they definitely have a major say in future and I will not be surprise keeping their track record in front that possibility of any forward block if differences occur. However, this is electoral politics where strength of party lies in no. of seats. The traditional politicians may resist in some policies of change, approval of policies which hurt the landlords but it is test of Chairman PTI that how he will handle the people and issues. One cannot run away from these issues as these are with every big political party in Pakistan but you can manage it and this management is a real test of Imran Khan. The inclusions of traditional politicians is also a message to old PTI office bearers who despite the old association with PTI unable to present themselves as electable and could not able to enhance their social circle. Old affiliation with PTI is not criteria but the progress which matter and if they are not able to be an electable in their constituency and PTI has to rely on traditional politicians then it’s also their failure. Many current PTI office bearers are looking to leave PTI as they are not capable enough to live in competitive environment and I know what reason they will present.

Way forward for PTI

I am convinced that politics is not legality in which there is right or wrong but its perception which matters a lot. If someone is perceive to be corrupt, despite the truth is otherwise, he may not be able to get decisive votes. Voters will not bother to verify the accusations, its perception which matter on voting day. It is understood that PTI has justification to induct old traditional politicians but all is depend on how you present. What to show the most and what to hide.  I know that announcement of joining of old traditional politicians is required to attract other electables but at the same time it is creating negative perception among the emotional youth. PTI need to neutral the negative perception by bringing some youth leadership in front. Provide them opportunity to face media; similarly, some leadership from middle class educated people shall also need to be highlighted. This will definitely neutralize the negative perception to some extent. Also if possible avoid the media hype regarding joining of old politicians as the people concern will know from there circle that who has joined PTI. Workout on the methods to present PTI as agent of change and bring educated faces in talk shows. However, it is also suggested to avoid bad reputed old politicians and I remember Quaid’s saying to Liaquat Ali Khan that “DO BUT DONT OVERDO”. Further, if PTI does not strengthen its organization at lower level, it cannot win election. On Election Day, party need organization otherwise PTI candidates will not compete to more organized old parties except the old traditional candidates who joined PTI and this may not good for PTI future. It’s possible that you organize Jalsas with poor organization but when it comes to constituency voting, you cannot succeed without proper organization. In this regard, immediate election within PTI is required as this is the only way to strengthen the party at lower level. It is also a perception that PTI does not have any solution of problems. My suggestion is that PTI shall announce various committees, comprises politicians and technocrats, like Economic Reforms Committee, Education Reforms Committee, Agricultural Reforms Committee, Police Reform Committees. Members along with contact details shall be announce and people may be asks to provide suggestions. These committees will announce the policies near elections however, this will dilute the perception that PTI does not have people to resolve issues and further, it will provide people the sense of participation and affiliation with PTI.

Is PTI really loosing Media battle? by Adeel Ahmed

Is PTI really loosing Media battle? by Adeel Ahmed

This question can be answered in many ways, depending upon the angle you are looking. However,  despite considering all the facts and benefits to PTI for its spokespersons appearing on electronic media, it can be argued safely that PTI is loosing media battle. That’s another thing that PTI supporters keep in mind that PTI hasn’t lost the war yet. I too believe that even if PTI faced deprivation and humiliation in some talk shows but the war is ON, no need to switch panic button and PTI has to devised strategy with careful consideration to its strengths and weaknesses as well as its opponents’. In this piece of writing I intend to diagnose what is going wrong on talk shows with PTI and suggest how it can be rectified.

Politician as a good spokesperson:

It should be understood that not every politician can be good spokesperson. The talk shows also test one’s IQ, sharpness and speaking power. It has been obvious from various talk shows that spokespersons of traditional political parties for the sake of reply and to avoid humiliation provide statements against the fact as they are aware that nobody is there to verify their statements. This is something contrary to the print media where each word chosen can be analyzed as much as you want. But a good performance in talk shows is extremely important, particularly of you are targeting youth.

The point is that PTI need to constitute a pool of spokespersons and only they will be allowed to accept the invitation of talk shows. For example, Mian Azhar, Jamal Laghari, Jahangir Tareen are very seasoned politicians but they may not be the appropriate choice for talk shows as may be Farooq Amjad Mir, Akber Sher Baber, Imran Ismail. However, if the talk show is of different nature where no violent clash between spokespersons expected and it is on specific topic, PTI may send Jahangir Tareen for economy, Shireen Mazari for International affairs, Hamid Khan for Constitutional discussion. The bottom line is to make pool of spokesperson and only let them allow accepting invitation of talk shows depending on the nature of he . It is not necessary to have spokespersons in all talk shows but the spokespersons should be able to defend PTI convincingly and send a positive message to the viewers.

Horses for Courses:

There is rare breed of people competent in every field and therefore, generally we have to follow ‘horses for courses’ strategy. In the case of talk shows, first you may classified the ‘category by hosts’, Talat Hussain, Nadeem Malik, Naseem Zehra usually avoid too many arguments and conduct their program in decent manner, on the other hand, Kashif Abbasi, Aasma Shirazi, Fareeha Idrees has their own style. Further, classification may be made on the basis of ‘category by guests’, which is more important in our case. PTI cannot afford to have decent spokespersons like Shafqat Mahmood, Masood Sharif Khattak in front of Faisla Raza Abidi, Hanif Abbasi, Mushahidullah as it may not possible for them to change their style to confront them but Farooq Amjar Mir, Imran Ismail may be much suited for these opponents. So, PTI should try to know about the other guests in advance to devise strategy and appropriate spokesperson for representing PTI. 

What Face PTI wants to show?

This is bitter and sad reality of electoral politics that we require candidates who enjoys significant influence among their bradaris. The maxim is that ultimately politics is a local phenomenon. Though not every traditional politician is corrupt (for example Ishaq Khakwani) but with a bit a clever articulation “old/traditional” and “corrupt” can be made perceive as synonyms. The reason for its acceptance is that people believe entire political class emerged in 80‘s to be responsible for Pakistan’s misery. Now, if PTI want to be perceived as a “Vehicle of Change”, different from the older political class, we shouldn’t have them. BUT the bitter reality has forced their inclusion. However, at least one thing can be done: ‘By large pool of representative in media shall comprise of new faces and old PTI members. The  traditional politicians may be included in the pool having impeccable credentials like Ishaq Khakwani otherwise it is better to avoid them for damage control.

The points mentioned regarding the constitution of pool of spokesperson may be difficult to act upon but this the way forward and guideline for improvement and betterment in talk shows. Now, in writing to follow, we will discuss some tactics to be followed by PTI spokespersons in talk shows for better performance.

Tactics for Talk Shows

1.   Play on your own pitch: It is easier to defeat opponent if you are playing on your own pitch. Here this means that PTI like every other party has some strong points and some weak. Your opponents will always try to make you play on his own pitch by attacking on your weak point. The mistake which PTI spokespersons are making frequently is that they spend too much time on the defence rather setting the course of discussion themselves. Without realizing that they are heading towards a defeat. What PTI spokesperson should do that not spend too much time and quickly set the agenda of discussion on some other point. For example:.

Opponent: How can you bring change with former PML-Q members?

PTI: Why not? Isn’t Nawaz Sharif came from Tehreek-Istiqlal, isn’t Hanif Abbasi came from MMA. Most of leaders in PML-N were in IJT or JI. So does that imply those leaders are lotas? Ok tell me, do you think Nawaz Sharif a lota? And Mr. Zahid Khan, Law Minister in Musharraf era when Chief Justice was house arrested is now in PML-N, more than 20 Ex Law makers of PML-Q has joined PML-N and more Musharraf allies are ready to alliance you like PML-F and Hamkhayal……………………….

Let’s face it, you can’t defend inclusion of former PML-Q members in PTI. If you try you will go on back foot and finally left clueless. The solution is simple: on your weak points just counter attack. I am convinced that memory of people is quite short and they will forget from where the talk started.

• Prepare your own Pitch: It is also necessary to drag the game on to your own pitch where you can easily smash your opponent thoroughly. It will require some effort and skill. First, you need to do the proper homework. Say, you should have a list of all the Q-leagers joined PML-N and some credible documents to back up your claims.

Here is another example. PML-N is in Punjab Government and there is severe bad governace in health, education, police and other provincial departments. Similarly, many issues in businesses of Sharif Family including the Ittefaq Foundary been defaulter of many banks, and other government institutions. PTI spokespersons shall take some evidence or at least some material with them and begin exposing them. As soon as the opponent start defending, now he is on your pitch and never let him go easily.

It is quite easy in traditional talk shows to deviated a little bit and bring the opponents on your own pitch. Excluding commercials time, talk time each participant get is hardly 15 minutes and that’s enough for you. It is responsibility of man in-charge in PTI to do homework and handover such facts of opponents to each spokesperson. I observe that very few spokespersons in PTI come well prepared in talk shows.

• Use Facts & Figures and bit technical language: It has been observed that many PTI spokespersons talk like lay man without any facts and figures, without using technical terms and letting the impression that these spokespersons has almost no idea of running helm of affair, constitutional complications, implemented policies in various ministries etc. This impression further get strengthen that PTI has no policies or route map for running the state. This impression need to be addressed immediately and effectively.

I hope the concerns mention here may get due consideration of PTI Information Secretary or media cell. PTI need to have strong media cell capable enough to prepare some documents for PTI spokespersons and support them.

Adeel Ahmed

PTI Karachi