The News - July 24

Cut in budget likely to force HEC to drop 80% of students

Saturday, July 24, 2010 Noor Aftab Islamabad A drastic cut in the annual budget is likely to force Higher Education Commission (HEC) to drop 80 per cent of students for foreign scholarships due to non-availability of required funds, sources told ‘The News’ here on Friday. The data showed that HEC set a target to select 800 students for foreign scholarships in MS, MPhil leading to PhD in universities of US, UK, Canada, Australia, Japan, Singapore, Germany, France and Cuba. The annual PSDP budget for the HEC has been reduced from Rs22.5 billion to Rs15.7 billion and now it is finding it difficult to provide required funds to 640 students for foreign scholarships. Sources said that the HEC has now approached top government functionaries for provision of funds otherwise it would have no option except to deprive hundreds of students of their foreign scholarships. An official said the scheme of foreign scholarships was initiated to supplement HEC’s efforts for provision of adequate number of trained PhD manpower that would ultimately help support technology upgrading, develop high standards of science and technology and meet growing challenges for national economy. He said that a number of scholarships are being offered to scholars to continue their postgraduate studies in the field of economics and finance abroad, adding that the scholarships provide awards for PhD scholarships to universities in leading European and Asian countries with low tuition fees. He said up to 10 per cent of the available seats are reserved to support the PhD level training of candidates, who have been admitted to a group of carefully selected universities in advanced countries based on their expertise in various disciplines. Sources said that currently there are over 9,000 students studying on various scholarships and human resource development programmes, including foreign PhD scholarships in various stages of their progress and an amount of Rs10 billion is required to maintain their monthly stipends, tuition fees and research expenses. The official said the allocated funds for the HEC would hardly enable them to meet expenses of those students already studying on scholarships so it would be difficult to provide more scholarships in the current year. It is pertinent to mention here that Prime Minister Yusuf Raza Gilani assured vice chancellors of 70 public sector universities on February 23 that there would be no cut in financial allocations for the education sector, but unfortunately, the facts appeared contrary to his claim in the annual fiscal budget. HEC Member Operations and Planning Dr. Mukhtar Ahmad told this scribe that they have approached the government and hopefully required funds would be available for foreign scholarships of students. To a question whether they have got any assurance for provision of required funds, he said, “Hopefully we would be able to arrange funds for foreign scholarships.” HEC Executive Director Dr. Sohail Naqvi told this scribe, “Unfortunately we lack required funds for foreign scholarships, but we would try our level best to achieve the target of 800 foreign scholarships this year.” “We have approached the government, but so far it has given no assurance for provision of required funds. If funds are not available then we would have no other option, but to reduce number of foreign scholarships,” he said. To a question, he said, it is not yet clear how much funds would be available in the education sector under Kerry-Lugar Bill, adding, “We hope a portion of funds would also be given for higher education sector in the country.” Source :

http://www.thenews.com.pk/daily_detail.asp?id=252532

The News - July 24

Resistance personified

Saturday, July 24, 2010 Farooq Sulehria Afghan leader Malalai Joya is resistance personified. She is the most vocal critic of both US occupation of Afghanistan and the ruling warlords. At the same time, she speaks dismissively of the Taliban: "Their violence is no resistance". However, Malalai Joya hardly grabs headlines in the Pakistani media that often glorifies the mindless violence of the Taliban. But she is a household name in Afghanistan and a known figure internationally. She was called "Afghanistan's most famous women" by the BBC a few years ago. Last April, she was ranked among the 100 most influential people of the world by Time Magazine. But Time asked Dutch-Somalian author Ayaan Hirsi Ali, who is known for her Islamophobic views, to make the announcement. Now settled in the US, Hirsi Ali distorted Joya's image in her malicious announcement by saying: "I hope in time [Joya] comes to see the US and NATO forces in her country as her allies. She must use her notoriety, her demonstrated wit and her resilience to get the troops on her side instead of out of her country". A furious Joya reacted strongly. In her counter-statement, she said: "Time has painted a false picture of me and does not mention anything at all about my struggle against the occupation of Afghanistan by the US and NATO, which is disgusting. In fact, everyone knows that I stand side-by-side with the glorious antiwar movements around the world and have proved time and again that I will never compromise with the US and NATO who have occupied my country, empowered the most bloody enemies of my people and are killing my innocent compatriots in Afghanistan". Joya earned a mark back in 2003 at the Loya Jirga (Greater Assembly) convened to ratify Afghanistan's new constitution. Unlike the US-sponsored, clean-shaven fundamentalists, Joya was not nominated by Karzai. She was elected by the people of the Farah province to represent them at the Loya Jirga. The Jirga was chaired by Sibghatullah Mojaddedi who, at the very outset, told the women delegates: "Even God has not given you equal rights because under His decision two women are equal to one man". Joya had bravely organised underground girls' schools in Herat when the Taliban's terror drove millions into exile. Mojaddedi's patriarchal admonition could not intimidate Joya. She stunned the Loya Jirga and the press members present to cover the occasion by delivering a three-minute, hard-hitting speech, exposing the crimes of the warlords running the Loya Jirga. A befuddled grey-bearded Sibghatullah Mojaddedi, on hearing Joya, screamed in anger and called her 'infidel' and 'communist'. Others also shouted at her. But before she was silenced by an angry mob of warlords, with her single, but timely, act she had electrified Afghanistan. When she criticised the warlords at the Loya Jirga, even 'Viceroy' Zalmay Khalilzad -- the then US envoy to Afghanistan -- was upset. "Joya", Khalilzad chided, "had overstepped the framework of politeness". She wrote a letter to Khalilzad, saying: "If these criminals raped your mother or daughter or even your grandmother, or killed seven of your sons, let alone destroyed all the moral and material treasure of your country, what words would you use against such criminals and puppets that will be inside the framework of politeness and respect?" In the meantime, three fateful minutes at the Loya Jirga changed the course of Joya's life. In her native province of Farah, locals wanted her to represent them in elections. It does not merely take guns and dollars to contest an election in Afghanistan. Joya had none. Still, she contested and was elected to parliament in 2005. Danish filmmaker Eva Mulvad immortalised Joya's courageous election campaign and subsequent victory in her documentary "Enemies of Happiness". Aged 25, Malalai Joya was the youngest Afghan MP. More importantly, she proved herself to be the bravest MP. On the floor of parliament, she emerged as the strongest critic of US occupation and the Taliban- and mujahidin-dominated Karzai regime. Hence, at almost every parliamentary session she attended, she had her hair pulled, was attacked physically and called names by her 'Islamist' colleagues. She was even threatened with rape on the floor of the house. In one case, the warlords bussed in thousands of men to Kabul to march and demand "Death to Joya". Niaz Mohammad Amiri, a member of Abdul Rasul Sayyaf's Wahabist party, would never miss an opportunity during parliamentary sessions to call her a prostitute. Flyers were distributed calling her prostitute, communist and anti-Islamic. "Among the worst was a leaflet that showed a photograph of me without my headscarf, falsely saying that the picture was taken at the Loya Jirga. Underneath was the awful slogan: she took off her scarf at the Loya Jirga, she'll take off her pants in parliament", Joya noted in her book Raising My Voice that has recently come out. Once she was abroad on Valentine's Day. It was propagated that she was abroad to celebrate Valentine's Day. In her two years in parliament, she never once had the chance to complete her speech without her microphone switched off. But even her half-delivered speeches were hard to tolerate. Hence, she was suspended from parliament. Her suspension has been widely criticised. From Noam Chomsky to Naomi Klein, a host of noted people have signed the petition for her reinstatement. She now leads an underground life. To hide her identity, she wears the burqa which she otherwise hates. In view of her previous experience, she has decided not to contest elections scheduled for September this year. The writer is a freelance contributor. Email: mfsulehria@hotmail.com Source :

http://www.thenews.com.pk/daily_detail.asp?id=252624

UNB Connect - July 24

Experts urge stronger diplomacy over water

Dhaka, Jul 24 (UNB) – Water experts at a conference on Saturday stressed the need for combined efforts to unite the nation for realizing the potential of its water resources by mitigating the effects of India’s moves to construct dams on major international rivers.

They said that although the source of all principal rivers of Bangladesh are outside the country, depending on the upstream water for their flow, India is planning to build dams in upstream areas of the major rivers including Barak.
The International Farakka Committee (IFC), New York Inc, organized the day-long conference titled ‘Water Problems of Bangladesh: National and Regional Perspectives’ at National Press Club in the city today.


IFC chairman Atiqur PK Eusufzai presided over the session while Former UN Environment Specialist and water expert Dr SI Khan presented a keynote paper at the conference.


Former DU VC Dr Maniruzzaman Miah, former KU VC Prof Abdul Quadar Bhuiyan, former State Minister for Foreign Affairs Abul Hasan Chowdhury,  DU Prof Dr Asif Nazrul Islam, Dr Zaffarullah Chowdhury, editor of the New Nation Mostafa Kamal Majumdar and Journalist Sadeq Khan spoke on the occasion.


Speaking at the conference, Dr SI Khan said there are some 54 international rivers in the South Asia region, from which India has withdrawn water from 42 rivers by constructing dams on them.


“Although the majority of the water of these rivers come from Nepal and Bhutan, India is trying to use all of the water by overlooking the interests of neighboring countries,” he said.


On India’s move to construct Tipaimukh Dam on Barak river, Dr Khan said if the India government implements the proposed Tipaimukh Dam, 60 percent of the area of the country’s Meghna basin will be affected by desertification, and salinity will rise to affect the area up to Sylhet town.


He urged the government to pressure the neighboring country for ideal sharing of the water of another common riverm, the Teesta, as per the water treaty signed by the two countries earlier.


Dr Khan suggested the formation of a committee involving UN water experts to demolish the Farakka dam built by India to save the country’s north-western part from desertification.


Blaming the political parties, Dr Asif Nazul said that no successive government could play any sort of comprehensive role in realizing our water and water resources from India.


“We are not a foolish nation. But whoever governs the country, either they are foolish, selfish or unpatriotic,” he said.


He urged the upcoming generation to come forward and take the responsibility upon their shoulders for solving the longstanding regional water problems.     
About 92 percent of the catchments area of the Ganges, Brahmaputra and Meghna (GBM) rivers are located outside Bangladesh while the GBM river basin is around 64 percent in India, 18 percent in China, 9 percent in Nepal, and 3 percent in Bhutan.


It is estimated that the catchments area of the Ganges, Brahmaputra and Meghna rivers is 12 times the size of Bangladesh.


Source : http://www.unbconnect.com/component/news/task-show/id-26163

Jerusalem Post - July 23

Eiland: Flotilla was preventable

’There were political courses of action available’

Maj.-Gen Giora Eiland said it was possible to prevent the May 31 flotilla to Gaza by political means, speaking in an interview with Reshet Bet Friday. 

"Three months before the flotilla there were many courses of action which could have prevented it," said Eiland, head of a military commission charged with conducting an internal investigation of the Gaza-bound flotilla, which was boarded by Israeli commandos and left nine Turkish citizens dead.

Eiland suggested Israel "could have opened the Gaza crossings in advance, before the Turkish flotilla."  The crossings were expanded to allow more aid to go through, but this was only done in the wake of international pressure after the flotilla.

The general also said Israel knew in advance about the changing political winds in Turkey and tightening ties with the IHH, the organization behind the flotilla. However, he thought this only strengthened Israel's resolve to continue with the predicted course of events, which led to the boarding of the Mavi Marmara, flagship of the flotilla. 

The Eiland Commission's report concluded that a series of operational and intelligence mistakes led to the raid in late May aboard the Mavi Marmara.

The 100 page report listed a number of “mistakes” that had been made in the planning stage of the operation. Eiland, a former head of the IDF’s Planning Division and the National Security Council, said that he did not find any negligence in the planning and implementation of the operation. He also made it clear that there was a difference between “operational failures” and “operational mistakes” and that he had only found mistakes, not failures.

“There were mistakes, also on the high military levels, but happily, they were not the result of negligence,” Eiland said.

He slammed the navy for not preparing a "Plan B," instead choosing to board the flotilla despite heavy presence of activists on board. 

The Israel Navy went on high alert Thursday in preparation for another flotilla, amid forecasts that two vessels from Lebanon were preparing to depart for the Gaza Strip in an effort to break the blockade by the end of the week. 

Two ships are expected to depart Tripoli on either Friday or Saturday to try and break the blockade. One of the ships is carrying women and the other is carrying journalists.

Source : http://www.jpost.com/LandedPages/PrintArticle.aspx?id=182362

The New York Times - July 22

There’s Only One Way to Stop a Bully

By SUSAN ENGEL and MARLENE SANDSTROM

 

HERE in Massachusetts, teachers and administrators are spending their summers becoming familiar with the new state law that requires schools to institute an anti-bullying curriculum, investigate acts of bullying and report the most serious cases to law enforcement officers.

This new law was passed in April after a group of South Hadley, Mass., students were indicted in the bullying of a 15-year-old girl, Phoebe Prince, who committed suicide. To the extent that it underlines the importance of the problem and demands that schools figure out how to address it, it is a move in the right direction. But legislation alone can’t create kinder communities or teach children how to get along. That will take a much deeper rethinking of what schools should do for their students.

It’s important, first, to recognize that while cellphones and the Internet have made bullying more anonymous and unsupervised, there is little evidence that children are meaner than they used to be. Indeed, there is ample research — not to mention plenty of novels and memoirs — about how children have always victimized one another in large and small ways, how often they are oblivious to the rights and feelings of others and how rarely they defend a victim.

In a 1995 study in Canada, researchers placed video cameras in a school playground and discovered that overt acts of bullying occurred at an astonishing rate of 4.5 incidents per hour. Just as interesting, children typically stood idly by and watched the mistreatment of their classmates — apparently, the inclination and ability to protect one another and to enforce a culture of tolerance does not come naturally. These are values that must be taught.

Yet, in American curriculums, a growing emphasis on standardized test scores as the primary measure of “successful” schools has crowded out what should be an essential criterion for well-educated students: a sense of responsibility for the well-being of others.

What’s more, the danger of anti-bullying laws, which have now been passed by all but six states, is that they may subtly encourage schools to address this complicated problem quickly and superficially. Many schools are buying expensive anti-bullying curriculum packages, big glossy binders that look reassuring on the bookshelf and technically place schools closer to compliance with the new laws.

But our research on child development makes it clear that there is only one way to truly combat bullying. As an essential part of the school curriculum, we have to teach children how to be good to one another, how to cooperate, how to defend someone who is being picked on and how to stand up for what is right.

To do this, teachers and administrators must first be trained to recognize just how complex children’s social interactions really are. Yes, some conflict is a normal part of growing up, and plenty of friendly, responsible children dabble in mean behavior. For these children, a little guidance can go a long way. That is why the noted teacher and author Vivian Paley once made a rule that her students couldn’t exclude anyone from their play. It took a lot of effort to make it work, but it had a powerful impact on everyone.

Other children bully because they have emotional and developmental problems, or because they come from abusive families. They require our help more than our punishment.

The kind of bullying, though, that presents the most difficulty in figuring out how and when to intervene falls between these two extremes: Sometimes children who aren’t normally bullies get caught up in a larger culture of aggression — say, a clique of preadolescent girls who form a club with the specific function of being mean to other girls. Teachers must learn the difference between various sorts of aggressive behaviors, as well as the approaches that work best for each.

Most important, educators need to make a profound commitment to turn schools into genuine communities. Children need to know that adults consider kindness and collaboration to be every bit as important as algebra and reading. In groups and one-on-one sessions, students and teachers should be having conversations about relationships every day. And, as obvious as it might sound, teachers can’t just preach kindness; they need to actually be nice to one another and to their students.

Teachers also need to structure learning activities in which children are interdependent and can learn to view individual differences as unique sources of strength. It’s vital that every student, not just the few who sign up for special projects or afterschool activities, be involved in endeavors that draw them together.

Look at Norway, where the prevention of such incidents became a major emphasis of the school system after three teenage victims of bullying committed suicide in 1983. There, everyone gets involved — teachers, janitors and bus drivers are all trained to identify instances of bullying, and taught how to intervene. Teachers regularly talk to one another about how their students interact. Children in every grade participate in weekly classroom discussions about friendship and conflict. Parents are involved in the process from the beginning.

Norway’s efforts have been tremendously effective. The incidence of bullying fell by half during the two-year period in which the programs were introduced. Stealing and cheating also declined. And the rate of bullying remains low today. Clearly, when a school and a community adopt values that are rooted in treating others with dignity and respect, children’s behavior can change.

Indeed, our analysis of successful bullying-prevention programs across the United States and abroad reveals that the key common factor is their breadth: both in terms of the people who participate and of the deep connection between specific policies and the larger social ethos of the school community.

Involving the legal system makes a strong statement that a society won’t tolerate bullying. But for laws like the one in Massachusetts to succeed, they have to be matched by an educational system that teaches children not only what’s wrong, but how to do what’s right.

Susan Engel is a senior lecturer in psychology and the director of the teaching program at Williams College, where Marlene Sandstrom is a professor of psychology.

Source : http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/23/opinion/23engel.html?_r=1&ref=global&pagewanted=print

Dawn - July 24

Making Success Fail

By A. G. Noorani

The best course before India and Pakistan is to revive the jettisoned accord now by making a joint announcement to hold talks on the issues which were agreed on July 15.

THE India-Pakistan foreign ministers’ meeting on July 15 raises six questions. What was its main purpose? How did they try to fulfil it? What derailed a meeting which nearly succeeded? What impact did Indian Home Secretary G.K. Pillai have? And also the press conference? Finally, how do we proceed from here to fulfil the remit which Prime Ministers Manmohan Singh and Yousuf Raza Gilani gave the foreign ministers at Thimpu on April 29?

No joint statement was issued but Foreign Secretary Nirupama Rao’s statement on April 29 and Foreign Minister Shah Mehmood Qureshi’s the next day shed ample light. He said, “There has been a trust deficit and we have to bridge it. It can be done through CBMS [confidence-building measures]. It will not happen in a day. It is a process.” Also, “We have Kashmir, Sir Creek, Siachen, water dispute, trade relations and terrorism as the major issues” to discuss.
Ms Rao said that the prime ministers “focused on the renewal of dialogue” to “restore trust and confidence” and “the searchlight is on the future and not on the past”. She revealed that Dr Manmohan Singh had, indeed, expressed his concerns about Lashkar-iTaiba founder Hafiz Saeed, the slow progress in the trials in Pakistan of the Mumbai cases, and the increase in infiltrations across the Line of Control (LoC). She said “all issues of concern will be discussed”. Both agreed that the dialogue mattered, not its “nomenclature”.
If the prime ministers raised the dialogue to the political level (the foreign ministers’), it was because they wished to proceed with a political dialogue on the pending issues without minimising the Mumbai blasts issue. Defining India’s policy, on June 13, Ms Rao mentioned “one dilemma. How do we deal with the persistent threat of terrorism” and urged Pakistan to “act effectively” against the terrorist groups. She spoke of the political dialogue as well. “We also have to reaffirm the progress made…in the composite dialogue or back-channel diplomacy.” In Islamabad on June 24, she said, “We must avoid stock phrases like ‘road map’.” At the “joint press stakeout” both sides were optimistic.
On June 26, Home Minister P.C. Chidambaram went to Islamabad and was convinced that the Interior Minister Rehman Malik and he “understood the situation and agreed that we should address the situation with the seriousness it deserves”. Mr Malik assured the visitor that India would not be disappointed with his replies to its queries on terrorism.
Born with a foot in the mouth, on July 13 Home Secretary G.K. Pillai talked about the alleged ISI role in the Mumbai blasts. In Islamabad on July 14 the foreign minister, S.M. Krishna, said in a prepared statement “I look forward to receiving feedback on the issues raised by our home minister” — less than three weeks earlier. Referring to Headley’s disclosures he said: “We naturally expect a response from Pakistan. I am here to find out what that response is.” He repeated this in his opening state ment at the conference. His emphasis went beyond the Thimpu remit. The matter was under discussion between the home ministers. Pillai created a nasty ripple in the pond, Krishna muddied the waters somewhat; but not altogether. For, all the pending issues were discussed; significant accord was arrived at; yet differences remained. These, however, fouled the atmosphere. A joint press conference is held only if there is total or near total accord and there is a relaxed atmosphere. Neither condition existed. Even so, the foreign ministers nearly pulled it off. An unwise diversion on infiltrations triggered off ugly sparring at the press conference.
That should neither obscure the gains nor impede the process. Mr Qureshi said, “We had a discussion on all the issues that are of importance whether it is terrorism, Jammu and Kashmir, the recent developments in Jammu & Kashmir, Sir Creek and Siachen.” He said that the progress made in the last four years should not be brought to “naught”. This confirmation of the progress in the back-channel is no small gain. He looked forward to India’s written proposal on Sir Creek which had been made verbally earlier. He assured Mr Krishna that Pakistan would “very seriously” take steps on the leads provided on the Headley interrogations and take steps to hasten the trial of the Mumbai blast cases. “We have made progress on Kashmir-related CBMs.” At his press conference the next day Mr Qureshi admitted that they had “reached agreement on many issues”. He remarked, “It is the nature of IndiaPakistan talks that whenever there is progress there is always a last-minute hitch. There was no hitch from Pakistan’s side.” The claim is not valid. He was impatient and that was reflected in his rude reference to directions from New Delhi. You don’t say that if you are to meet again. He shed the patience he had advised at Thimpu.
There lay the rub. They had agreed to meet in December. Officials had successfully drawn up a ‘calendar’ of dates for talks on all issues by designated secretaries, till December — water resour ces, trade, Sir Creek, visas, cross-LoC trade, exchange of prisoners, release of fishermen, enhancing people-to-people contact and visits by MPs. The foreign ministers were to review progress in these talks in December. Mr Qureshi insisted on including Kashmir and Siachen in the calendar for “substantive talks”. India agreed to do so “at an appropriate time”. The talks broke down on this fatuity, brilliantly described by Mr Iqbal A. Akhund in his Memoirs of a Bystander. Indians and Pakistanis revel in cleverly playing a game of words; “all the more so because they play it in a foreign language”.
The matter could have been resolved simply by agreeing to hold talks on them in December dropping both “substantive” and “at an appropriate moment”.
The best guarantee of accord is not a calendar of talks but generation of what lawyers call a “negotiating frame of mind.” On July 20 Mr Krishna said, “I have invited Foreign Minister Qureshi to visit India in the later part of the year so that we can take it up from where we left in Islamabad.” On July 22 he paid warm personal tributes to Mr Qureshi who said on July 21 that he was prepared to walk the “proverbial extra mile”. The best course is to revive the jettisoned accord. That can be done now by a joint announcement to hold talks on the issues which were agreed on July 15. Why wait till December? ¦ The writer is an author and a lawyer.

Source : http://epaper.dawn.com/ArticleText.aspx?article=24_07_2010_007_003

Dawn - July 24

The Wait for Messiah

By Irfan Hussain

OLDER readers will recognise this mantra from the past: “South Korea stole our first Five-Year Plan.” According to this urban legend, when a Korean was accused of this petty larceny by a Pakistani, he retorted: “Yes, but we implemented it.” The other pat on the back we give ourselves is about how PIA helped establish Air Malta and Emirates. I suppose that’s how those who have failed comfort themselves after having been knocked out of the league many years ago: in our period of decline, we sit around, reminiscing about the good old days.

Younger Pakistanis may find it hard to believe, but there was a time when Pakistan was held up as a model of development. India, constrained by its tightly regulated economy, was plodding along on what was called the ‘Hindu rate of growth’. Buoyed by foreign aid, then quite efficiently utilised, and with relatively liberal economic policies, Pakistan grew at a respectable rate that gave economists the widespread expectation that soon, the country would reach the take-off stage.


In the mid-1960s, a Turkish friend who worked for one of his country’s financial institutions told me that Pakistan’s Industrial Development Bank (IDBP) was cited as an exemplary state-sector enterprise in his organisation. As a young student, I remember feeling quite proud of my country. What institutions do our young people have to be proud of today?


In 1963, I drove from Germany to Pakistan with some friends over a series of steadily deteriorating roads. In Iran, we came across a metalled road 100km or so before and after Tehran. The rest were unpaved dirt roads. Poverty was so widespread that workers in eastern Iran would beg us for a box of matches.


When we crossed into Pakistan, it was like entering a developed country: although the roads in Balochistan were also unpaved, they had been neatly graded and properly marked. The border rest-house where we spent the night was adequate, and we were cooked a hot meal. Sleeping in the open under a brilliant, star-speckled sky, it felt good to be back.


So what happened to derail this success story? The short answer is 1965. This brief, pointless war, needlessly provoked by Pakistan, destabilised Ayub Khan’s government, and set in motion a chain of events that had farreaching consequences that haunt us still. Without getting into the causes leading up to this military disaster, I do see it as a hinge moment in our history.
Although the economy has grown in fits and starts since then, governance and institution-building have recorded a steady and terminal decline. Internationally, we are toxic, with our geopolitical location, our nuclear arsenal and our scary jihadi threat the only reasons why we figure in the calculations of other countries.


Many Pakistanis are convinced that if only we would get a good leader, everything could be fixed. Scores of readers have emailed me over the last couple of years, complaining about Asif Zardari. “What have we done to deserve him?” they moan. It’s almost as if they think some celestial figure should parachute down to take over. The reality is that all the actors are on the political stage, and we know what the options are.


A sizeable chunk of our chattering class is convinced that once Zardari quits the scene, rivers of milk and honey will start flowing again.


Considering that his predecessors in the presidency include such stellar figures as Ghulam Ishaq Khan, Farooq Leghari and Pervez Musharraf, it is difficult to understand how Zardari can do any worse. Indeed, whatever his many detractors say about him, his performance in office has been far better that anybody could have hoped for.


Of course, the inevitable allegations of graft swirl around this government, as they have around every elected civilian government in the past. The only reason military rulers have been spared this scrutiny is that our media moguls know better than to take on the generals over such a sensitive issue. Mere politicians, of course, are fair game. The wildest, most unfounded charges against them can be amplified in the megaphone that is the electronic media today.


Political discourse in Pakistan today resembles a Roman amphitheatre where gladiators fight and die before a mob baying for yet more blood. In this hysterical environment, it is next to impossible to initiate and sustain a sensible discussion on the real issues. When people get used to a steady diet of raw meat, it’s not easy to convince them that vegetables are good for them.
Thus, deadly serious matters like religious extremism and violence, illiteracy, poverty, the need for clean drinking water, rapid population growth, the degradation of our urban and rural environment and the water crisis are impatiently swept aside by the public and the media. What counts most to them are the NRO, the 18th Amendment, allegations of graft and the comings and goings of politicians, judges and generals.


This national preoccupation with peripheral issues lets the government off the hook. When the political discourse is diverted away from our pressing problems, the administration is under no pressure to deliver. While civil society is ready and willing to agitate for judicial independence and against the NRO, it does not show the same energy and zeal to take to the streets to demand better governance. I suppose ‘Go, Musharraf, go!’ makes a better slogan than ‘Clean drinking water for all!’ One reason for these warped priorities is that we seem to prefer to talk about abstract issues rather than mundane ones. For our educated middle class, access to clean drinking water is not the problem it is for millions of deprived Pakistanis. Ditto for education and health services as they can generally afford not to rely on creaking state facilities.


In most societies, pressure for change comes from an educated middle class. Until this class feels strongly enough for the country’s masses to demand an improvement in their lives, little will change. Currently, our civil society’s problems are more to do with the courts and government departments, so their focus is on reforming them. The media’s concern is to improve circulation and audience figures, so they whip up sudden squalls in the teacup about non-issues. And we lap up these little dramas and express our indignation in the comfort of our drawing rooms.


Meanwhile, in the real world, children starve quietly, or grow up stunted, unloved and malnourished in a hostile world. Uneducated, they have little chance of finding a job. But at least we have the consolation of being blessed with an independent judiciary. irfanhusain@gmail.com

Source : http://epaper.dawn.com/ArticleText.aspx?article=24_07_2010_007_004

Dawn - July 24

A Second Term for General Kayani

IT was the worst-kept secret in the country: Prime Minister Gilani’s announcement that army chief Gen Kayani is to be granted an extension in service came as a surprise to no one. The only thing that could be termed a little surprising was the length of the extension. Gen Kayani has effectively been handed a second three-year term, instead of a shorter extension. At this point, with the army’s strategy in the fight against militancy not as transparent as could be hoped for, it is difficult to comment on what Gen Kayani’s extension will mean for the specifics of that war. However, while there should be no doubt that winning the war against the militants is essential to the survival of this country as we know it, Gen Kayani’s extension must not be seen only through that prism.

Like it or not, the extension does not reflect well on the army as an institution. It is almost an article of faith that the Pakistan Army is the only viable, strong and vibrant institution in the country. Whatever Gen Kayani’s intimate familiarity with the present state of affairs and whatever his unique understanding of the situation, a strong institution should be able to withstand the retirement of one man, however experienced. A compelling example of institutional concerns coming before individuals was provided recently by the US, where the architect of the present American counter-insurgency strategy in Afghanistan was replaced. This in the middle of a war that is by all accounts going badly for the US. Here in Pakistan, the public is constantly told that the internal security situation has improved, that the TTP is on the back foot, that progress, while slow, is real and meaningful.


If it seems difficult to reconcile the idea of a strong institution having depth in talent and leadership with the ‘indispensability’ of a single man, then that’s because it truly is. Step back from the specifics of the present case and consider this: why does the principle of a regular change in leadership of the army even exist? It is not simply to give another general a go at the top slot. Regular, scheduled changes in leadership are in fact meant to keep institutions vibrant and strong. That there are ‘special circumstances’ at the present time is not fully convincing either. Externally, the uncertainty in Afghanistan, the intransigence of India, the unpredictability of the Americans — all these circumstances have existed before, and the country has survived them.


Internally, the fight against militancy is going to be a long, hard slog, the public is constantly told, with many years or perhaps even a decade and a half needed to see out the threat. How does a three-year extension affect that long-term course? Lest we forget, it was just a few years ago that another general believed in his indispensability and trampled over the constitution for a second time, and yet, here the country is still surviving, perhaps even better off since the dark days of Gen Musharraf’s drawnout exit.


Having said that, it is the decision of a democratically elected government to hand Gen Kayani his three-year extension. The public does not know yet, perhaps it never will, if the decision was a total capitulation or the result of a quid pro quo. Nevertheless, the government’s decision stands as a legal and effective one and should be accepted as such. Therefore, we wish Gen Kayani success in his second term and take this chance to remind him of the oath he has taken under the constitution. “I do solemnly swear that I will bear true faith and allegiance to Pakistan and uphold the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan which embodies the will of the people, that I will not engage myself in any political activities whatsoever and that I will honestly and faithfully serve Pakistan in the Pakistan Army as required by and under the law.”

Source : http://epaper.dawn.com/ArticleText.aspx?article=24_07_2010_007_001

The Onion - July 22

We Will Never Be United As A Nation As Long As There Are Other People Besides Myself

BY KURT BARNHURST 

This is a difficult time in our nation's history. There is a rift—a deep, enduring wound—among the people of this once-great land, and while I'm not sure it will be healed in my lifetime, I do not think all hope is lost. I believe change is possible, but the road will be long and difficult. The truth is, this nation can never be united as long as it is home to people other than myself.

The entire population of the United States and I simply can't see eye to eye on many of the key issues facing this country, and that is what tears us asunder. There are two Americas, and unfortunately, I'm the only person alive who is truly able to see things from my point of view. Thus we have a long way to go before our nation becomes a nation of Kurts.

And that saddens me.

There are some who will call me unpatriotic, but they are wrong. I love America, I cherish our way of life, and I have always believed there is room in our democracy for everyone to think and act the same way I do. Every man, woman, and child in this country is free to be just like me. It is no mere privilege—it is the God-given right of every American.

One day, people will realize that fostering a worldview identical to my own is the most sensible course of action. From where I stand, it's the only course of action.

In the meantime, there are a terrifying number of opinions out there that are not mine. Many of them are held by people I haven't even met. Even more alarming, I would estimate that, on average, non-Kurt-Americans probably share my specific perspective on fewer than five out of every 10 matters of political, ethical, and cultural importance. How can we as a nation move forward if millions upon millions of people in this country can't get on board with even half my agenda?

For example, I have spoken to many who disagree with my proposal that I be exempt from toll-booth charges on our nation's highways. This to me is the height of narcissism. If they put themselves in my shoes for three seconds, maybe they would appreciate the value of a traffic lane built exclusively for my use that I could speed through while cranking the Flaming Lips and waving to everyone in line as I pass.

But alas, these people are unable—or unwilling—to put aside their selfish motives and defer to mine.

There are 310 million people in this country who are not me. But deep down, all of us really want the same thing: to bridge the gaps that divide us, to live in peace and harmony. It can happen, but it's going to take some major concessions from everyone who isn't me. It's going to take everyone coming together, shutting their opinion-holes for once, and doing exactly what I want, when I want it.

Because the time for me is now.

I'm not naïve. I realize there are many Americans who have no interest in letting me do their thinking for them. Well, perhaps they should move to France or Bulgaria or some other country that isn't inhabited by me.

It's like my daddy always said: America: Love me or leave it

Source : http://www.theonion.com/articles/we-will-never-be-united-as-a-nation-as-long-as-the,17764/

The Wall Street Journal - July 22

Outgunning India's Maoists Isn't Enough

But neither is more development aid on its own. Delhi needs to adopt both approaches together.

By VIKAS KUMAR

After Maoist insurgents, or Naxalites, killed about 100 policemen and 180 civilians over the last few weeks, India is overflowing with counterinsurgency proposals ranging from police reforms to development schemes for the Naxal-affected areas. History suggests those plans might work, to an extent, over the short term. But a long-term solution is set to remain elusive.

Since independence, other parts of the country have developed at the expense of these areas, which contain almost the entire mineral wealth of India and a large share of other natural resources. Mining and hydropower projects have displaced millions, who have lost their habitat, livelihoods and cultural identity. The state has failed to reconcile the conflicting interests of the people in these areas, whose constitutional rights to things like adequate means of livelihood have been systematically violated, and the growing urban middle class elsewhere. This failure lies at the root of the insurgency, which the extreme left is trying to recast as a war against democracy and free markets.

Among the suggestions to tackle the problem, police reforms are the most unobjectionable. Everyone agrees we need a better equipped and more humane police force. But concerns regarding whether Delhi can effect such changes at the local level under India's federalist system have stalled progress in this regard. Chief ministers of some Naxal-affected provinces are not even accepting a unified command to integrate the operations of central and provincial police forces.

The issue of development is more contentious. On one extreme are those who want the harnessing of natural resources to go on as before as the opposite would slow down economic growth and adversely affect the pursuit of development goals. Those on the other extreme demand an immediate moratorium on all capital-intensive economic activities, and greater environmental restoration in Naxal-affected areas. They want the state to preserve the remaining Gardens of Eden, something the locals are presumed to want. They also presume that locals prefer a handicraft- and nature-tourism-based economy and that the state can develop infrastructure for the tourism industry in these areas without the participation of the private sector.

The extremism of the two sides is compounded by their naïveté. They expect the state to provide schools, hospitals and other civic amenities in the Naxal-affected areas. But the lack of development in these areas is being discussed precisely because, in the last two months, the state has been violently ousted from a few densely forested districts. Will the heavily armed Naxals, who thrive on lack of development, allow state-led development in and around their strongholds? It is naïve to assume that ordinary people in these areas can freely choose between the state and the Naxals without fear of intimidation.

For their part, the Naxals blame capitalists for people's plight but exclusively target police, schools and public transport. The Naxals are, in fact, running a hugely profitable extortion business, with estimated annual revenue between $300 million and $500 million. Similarly, they blame capitalists for destruction of forests but are themselves involved in massive smuggling of forest products. Will the Naxal leadership abandon their business empire just because the state agrees to open naturopathic hospitals and vernacular schools, in which children will be taught how to weave eco-friendly baskets out of natural fibers?

So, what is the solution? The Naxals are not open to talks and also will not allow direct dialogue with people in their strongholds. In the past they have used the pauses in fighting during talks to regroup. Unfortunately, nothing other than force appears likely to alter the ground situation in their impregnable strongholds, which constitute about 1% of India's area but enable them to operate in as much as 25% of India. Defeating the Naxals is not all that difficult but the collateral damage could alienate local people.

The state has, therefore, decided against using the army or launching an all-out police assault on Naxal strongholds. It is instead going to launch a massive development plan and improve local governance and involve the civil society in implementing its "new" policy. Most of these policy measures have been on the agenda of the ruling Congress party since 2004, when it returned to power after a decade. The state is also trying to selectively neutralize the Naxal leadership, largely middle-class and Telugu-speaking. Without that leadership the insurgency spread across varied language and climatic zones is likely to split into a number of smaller "problems."

But there is no guarantee that the central government in Delhi will manage to conclusively resolve these smaller problems. One challenge today is that insurgencies help provincial governments to extract aid and other concessions from the center. Moreover, some political parties depend on Naxal support in elections. So local officials face mixed incentives in dealing with the insurgency and may be less than enthusiastic about fixing it for good. Compounding matters, the Congress party that heads the coalition government in New Delhi is in power in just one of the six most affected provinces..

This raises the prospect of a worrying scenario: A decapitated Naxalite movement splinters into smaller, highly localized groups that degenerate into ideologically neutral, parochial criminalism. While not specifically targeting the state themselves, they could create safe havens for future insurgencies. In the 1970s, the state managed to stamp out Naxalism through half-hearted land reforms and police repression. But the subsequent apathy toward the core economic complaints regarding ownership of land and its resources in the region ultimately rejuvenated the insurgency. Even though the state will once again manage to out-spend and out-gun the insurgents, there's a real danger that history will repeat itself.

Mr. Kumar is an independent researcher based in Bangalore.

Source : http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703467304575382542351115362.html#printMode

News From Bangladesh - July 24

The Challenge with Bangladesh Democracy

By Professor Mahfuz R. Chowdhury

The history of democracy in Bangladesh has been very tumultuous to say the least. This is primarily because the country’s politicians and military leaders only talk of supporting democracy or the democratic process when they see a chance to grab state power through elections. But after ascending to power they seem to bury democracy. The key objective of Bangladesh’s politicians and some of its military leaders has been to seize state power essentially to promote their self-interest. And once in power, either democratically or through military might, they ignore the promises they had made, embrace autocracy, practice all kinds of intimidation to suppress the opposition, and engage in systematic looting of the state’s treasure. When knocked out of power, the opposition party routinely resorts to hartals (or general strikes) and violence. It’s actually quite ironic how the leaders of Bangladesh’s two dominant parties either champion democracy or bury it depending on whether they are out of power or in power! The democratic process is seen not as a way for the people of Bangladesh to pick the policies they prefer but as a way of deciding which party would be in power.

The above would sum up the history of Bangladesh democracy, except for one important fact. The actual power within a party rests almost entirely with the party leader, whether the party is in power or in opposition. And the leader tends to stay in that position until death, at which time the leadership mantle usually passes on to the biological heir of the leader. Political power and position has become a hereditary matter for Bangladesh. At least this is what has happened in the case of the two largest political parties that are presently controlling politics, and this trend can be expected to continue unless there is of course a drastic change. 

The two political parties that dominate Bangladesh’s politics today are the Awami League and the Bangladesh Nationalist Party. Here’s how these two parties have come to assume their current positions. 

Awami League came into existence in the early days of Pakistan when Bangladesh was a part of Pakistan. Later under the leadership of its dominant leader Sheikh Mujibur Rahman the country went to war and won its liberation from Pakistan. Following liberation, the whole country submitted to Sheikh Mujib for his leadership on governance and future direction. People were even prepared to take his words to be the law of the land. But the way he misused such a strong mandate of the people just about sealed his fate and the fates of many other members of his family. 

After assuming state power, Sheikh Mujib having initially flip-flopped on what title to take – President or Prime Minister – began to consolidate his power over the government and the country. His commitment to democracy soon withered as he abandoned democracy in favor of autocracy. He created his own personal armed force and used it to brutally suppress the opposition, he banned newspapers that criticized his rule, and more significantly he declared Bangladesh a one-party state. Thus, by virtue of his authority, he killed the very democracy that brought him to power. Well, the freedom fighters who had fought in the liberation war and the people in general couldn’t stomach such actions by Sheikh Mujib even though he was the paramount leader of the country. So, after about three and half years of his dictatorial rule, he was brutally assassinated by army personnel in his own house along with all family members who were present. He was survived by his two daughters, who were outside the country at the time. It was by all means a great tragedy.

Immediately after his assassination, the country briefly experienced serious political turmoil. In the mayhem that followed, civilian and military leaders emerged who were either deposed or murdered. In the end, General Ziaur Rahman, a prominent freedom fighter backed by the army, emerged to assume state power. His rule, however, was supposed to be a temporary one and he was expected to arrange a national election and hand over power to the newly elected government. But the election that followed was not for others, it was a “yes or no” vote on him. 

Having tasted supreme power, General Zia quickly proceeded to institutionalize his rule. By successfully luring many of the disgruntled political leaders of the country to his camp he formed the Bangladesh Nationalist Party. He even gave amnesty to people who had opposed the creation of Bangladesh (including the assassinators of Sheikh Mujib) and installed them in key positions in the party and government. He felt so confident of himself that he once boasted that he would make politics difficult for the politicians. He was true to his promise! He made a real mockery of every democratic value by systematically dismantling the vital democratic institutions in the country. By openly rigging the people’s vote he created his own parliament, which he used to rubber stamp his policies. He ruled autocratically, and murdered many army mutineers including some of those who helped him to gain power. Legend has it that a person who lives by the sword dies by the sword. So General Zia too eventually had to sacrifice his life for his autocratic actions; he was assassinated by the army after about six years in power.

Following him it was General H M Ershad’s turn to grab state power. By using the experiences of his immediate predecessor and applying his personal wit, he succeeded in perpetrating his autocratic rule. He too proceeded to establish his own political party and ran sham elections. He proved to be a skillful master and was able to keep his opponents at bay for many years. He was also rumored to fake his own fatherhood to gain acceptance by the people. During his time, the democratic institutions in the country were further dismantled. In the end, after the country’s democratic forces finally regrouped and the two dominant parties joined hands and went on to mobilize a national movement, Ershad’s regime was forced to hand over power after a long nine years of dictatorial rule. 

Finally, after a national election, democracy was supposedly restored in the country in 1990. In this election Bangladesh Nationalist Party captured power. But since then power has been alternating between Bangladesh Nationalist Party and Awami League, though the former has been in power longer. The many other political parties that operate in the country were relegated to a supporting position. Nevertheless, the fundamentalist Jamaat e Islami party has emerged to be the king maker. It has in the past tilted elections for both major parties by throwing its support behind them. 

Prior to the 1990 election, both Awami League and Bangladesh Nationalist Party, the two emerging dominant parties, underwent serious transformations. The assassinations of their dominant leaders had put them in a clear shambles. The party elders distrusted each other and couldn’t agree on who would succeed the assassinated leaders. When there is no intra-party democracy, no leader can emerge from within the party as the popular choice of rank-and-file party members. And in that vacuum, a relative unknown such as a family member of the assassinated leader becomes the only viable alternative. So as a compromise, Awami League inducted Sheik Hasina to take her father’s position and the Bangladesh Nationalist Party followed suit by inducting Khaleda Zia to fill her husband’s position, even though both ladies were considered to be politically inept. But what followed after their induction to the leadership positions has dramatically changed the political landscape in Bangladesh. 

As expected, the unscrupulous politicians in each party raced to line up behind the two ladies in order to achieve personal gains. This inevitably gave the ladies a chance to gradually consolidate their power within their respective parties. By utilizing their newly found authority, they then started to put loyalists in key party positions. Obviously, it didn’t take too long for them to assume dictatorial power within their parties, whether in power or in opposition. At the same time, their tolerance for the democratic process also waned. Few party members dared to question their authority. Those who did faced the sack almost immediately. 

Here’s how the two ladies have come to exercise their authority. Prior to an election they would allocate parliament seats usually to those who had money and muscle, and when victorious in the election they would distribute ministerial posts to their loyalists. Before an election they might routinely promise to decentralize government administration or make the judiciary independent, which are indeed vital for proper functioning of a democracy. But once in power they would ignore those promises. In fact, both ladies appear to be grooming their young sons to replace them when the time comes. 

When Khaleda Zia came to power, she spearheaded legislation to officially recognize her late husband as the architect of the liberation of Bangladesh (which literally infuriated her opponents), wrote the country’s history in a biased form, intimidated the opposition in parliament and harassed them outside parliament in every possible way. She effectively put her young son in charge of key governmental decisions, especially the lucrative ones. The opposition led by Sheikh Hasina, on the other hand, responded by promoting strikes, disruption and violence in the country with the ultimate aim of bringing down the government. 

When Sheikh Hasina regained state power, her first order of business was to eliminate General Zia’s name from every important place in Bangladesh, such as the national airport, university and park. She quickly rewrote the history books in her way, proceeded to intimidate the opposition in the parliament and harass them outside, and even closed a newspaper that was critical of her administration. She initiated legislation to return to the 1972 constitution, to repossess the house that Khaleda Zia resides in and was bestowed on her by a rival government, and to persecute the people who had opposed Bangladesh’s liberation movement but had been pardoned. The latter may turn out to be a difficult move since Saudi Arabia, which provides employment and financial support to Bangladesh also backs those who opposed the movement. In any case, the opposition party of Khaleda Zia has duly reciprocated by calling a national strike, promoting agitation and promising massive violence with the same idea of bringing down the government. While these kinds of tit for tat fights between the two parties go on, the country and the people suffer. 

The moral fibers of both parties are fundamentally same, but for personal and selfish reasons they continue to treat each other as arch enemies. They do not see eye to eye, and cannot agree on anything, not even on how to run an election. Earlier they had both agreed to an unprecedented procedure of appointing a care taker government to run elections, but later they got locked in a deadly fight over the formation and functioning of the proposed caretaker government. 

Thus, the evolution of democracy or the democratic process has remained an elusive matter for Bangladesh even after 38 years of independence. At the center of all these controversies are currently the two ladies who are running the two dominant parties. They are bent on destroying each other at any cost with the sole purpose of grabbing state power. As could be imagined, the economic and human cost of their infighting has been tremendous. For example, while other developing countries like Malaysia leap forward with huge economic success, Bangladesh with its abundant resources still remains a poverty stricken country while corruption and crime continue to rise. However, neither leader cares to understand the repercussions of their actions. It seems they just don’t care. 

Arguably, Bengalis as a nation are considered to be intelligent enough to produce several Nobel laureates, but when it comes to governing themselves, they have failed, and failed miserably. This was as true when the land first came under foreign domination many years ago as it is true today. It’s indeed very unfortunate. To paraphrase the great poet, philosopher and Nobel laureate of the land – Bengalis (Bangalees) don’t learn! 

The quality of democracy of a country depends on the checks and balances among its executive, legislative and judicial branches. And the press plays a very unique role in keeping these branches on their toes. Bangladesh’s democracy has failed to properly develop because of the lack of independence of the legislative and judicial branches and the press. But even under such constraints there may be some hope that democracy in Bangladesh would slowly improve. One good sign is that the military seems to be unwilling or unprepared to grab power. Although the present system promotes autocracy, it’s no longer absolute. The two dominant parties are putting some kind of checks and balances on each other, and the people are becoming more conscious of their rights and obligations because of the rise of the satellite TV and the Internet. 

The international community has a great obligation to help Bangladesh to strengthen its democracy. If Bangladesh, the seventh largest country in population, turns into a failed state as a result of a collapse of its democracy, it would only bolster fundamentalism. The rise of fundamentalism in Bangladesh would create a bigger mess than the world would care to handle. Also, expatriate Bangladeshis could play an important role. The expatriates by unequivocally rising above Bangladesh’s party politics and by taking a firm and united stand to promote democracy in their homeland could expedite the process. 

(The author taught Economics at CW Post Campus of Long Island University and State College at Farmingdale, New York. He has published numerous articles on issues concerning Bangladesh and developing economies, which are posted on various web sites) E Mail : Mahfuz.Chowdhury@liu.edu

Source : http://newsfrombangladesh.net/view.php?hidRecord=327866