Indian visa refusal

Editorial July 09, 2017

THERE had been complaints that the Indian high commission was not offering visas to Pakistanis except for rare cases
where patients, in dire need of treatment, wanted to avail themselves of better medical facilities across the border. The
news now seems to suggest that even this privilege extended to seriously ailing Pakistanis has been withdrawn. Peace
activists would say that this was a lifeline that has been taken away because of the deteriorating ties between the two
countries. The steady traffic of patients from Pakistan to various parts of India had been a crucial symbol of how the two
neighbours could, in fact, lean on one another when called upon to do so. It was a persistent trickle of such emotional
stories which brought specialist Indian doctors to Pakistan for trail-blazing joint procedures on patients here. This open
channel in a most fundamental area had long been an exception to the negativity that routinely enslaves minds on this
shared subcontinent. The media has played up many repeats of this human-interest story, and the help provided by friends
across the hostile border has been acknowledged and reciprocated with best wishes. This has been the case even when
suspicions about the Modi regime and its religious biases have increased in recent times.

The denial of a visa to a young woman from Lahore hoping to be given a new lease of life in India might in the eyes of many
explain just how intense and deep-rooted the problem between Islamabad and New Delhi is today. The optimists amongst
us would, however, be hoping that this rift, this heightened, nerve-wracking war of optics if you like, is not allowed to be
taken to a level where the posturing is in conflict with the most basic tenets of human relationships. Surely, provided there
is no legal hitch, the start of the new week will bring some good news for this young visa-seeker crying out for some
common-sense protocol.

Published in Dawn, July 9th, 2017

NTDC chiefs removal

Editorial July 09, 2017

IT seems as if one by one all those who dare to raise any questions about government policy are being removed. The latest
to go is the head of the National Transmission and Despatch Company, who had been vocal in cautioning against the
runaway commissioning of new power generation capacity. A decision was made in the Ministry of Water and Power last
year that no new power generation projects should be commissioned after the capacity expansion plan was put into motion.
The decision was made because more generation capacity would be surplus to projected requirements while creating
further burdens on the countrys fiscal and foreign exchange resources. Those who chaffed against this decision were
successful in removing its architect, the then secretary of water and power, from his position earlier this year. Following
the secretarys departure, the managing director of NTDC continued voicing concern about the reckless commissioning of
new generation capacity on extravagant terms. Now he too has been removed.

This rolling of heads in the power sector is mirrored in other places as the federal government is on an accelerated drive to
concentrate all powers in its own hands. The State Bank has been captured recently, and Nepras powers are being redrawn
to ensure that it is not left with the capacity to stand in the way of the governments will. All other regulators similarly face
the chopping block, while the Engineering Development Boards powers are being transferred to the industries ministry.
This is increasingly looking like a runaway centralisation drive, to strip all autonomous centres of power within the state
and subordinate them to the will of the federal government. The departure of the NTDC head means there are no voices
left in the power sector that can think outside the parameters set by the federal government. The reasons for the MDs
summary dismissal sound weak, and the fact that the board was unanimous in voting for his departure is further evidence
that only yes men are equipped to work under this government. It was stated that some transmission projects had not
been handled in a proper way and there were slippages in the time lines. He was also blamed for load-shedding during
Ramazan. The MD is a known professional, and his removal now creates a situation where the power sectors leadership is
passing to people who serve no interest other than that of their political masters.

Published in Dawn, July 9th, 2017

The impasse continues

Editorial July 09, 2017

THE good news is that the civil and military leadership are working together once again to address matters of national
security. The NSC meeting on Friday was the third in six weeks, with Afghanistan dominating the agenda, according to
official statements. The less welcome news is the message that has been honed and, after Fridays meeting, hardened:
Pakistan will continue to work towards peace and stability in Afghanistan, but the Afghan government must progressively
re-establish the states writ over swaths of the country lost to insurgent forces. With Afghanistan and the US continuing to
insist that Pakistan needs to do more to prevent the Afghan Taliban from consolidating their gains, Pakistan is effectively
telling Kabul and Washington that the problem lies inside Afghanistan a rhetorical stalemate. In the past, when
seemingly incompatible descriptions of the war in Afghanistan have been offered, the on-ground situation in that country
has worsened and the regional climate deteriorated. Could Pakistan, Afghanistan and the US be headed for another
downslide in ties?

A fair reading of the situation suggests that all sides must shoulder some of the blame for the current impasse. Pakistan
appears to want to switch the worlds attention to the fundamental shortcomings of the Afghan security forces and the self-
defeating internal squabbling of the National Unity Government. But that argument has not worked in over a decade and
is unlikely to win sympathy today. Even if it is true, the problem is the open secret that the Taliban leadership have been
shielded on Pakistani soil in the past and that Pakistan continues to enjoy a degree of influence over them. After all, if
Pakistan does not have continuing influence with them, what is its relevance to an eventual intra-Afghan peace process?
Far better, then, for Pakistan to indicate the conditions in which it believes a peace process can be restarted and, in the
meantime, to demonstrate that it is taking steps to prevent the Taliban from taking sanctuary in Pakistan with impunity.

Of course, where Pakistans official approach may be problematic, Afghanistan and the US are hardly free of contradictions
in their joint approach. The most recent example was the US Senate delegation that first came to Pakistan and then travelled
to Afghanistan. Here, the Senate delegation led by John McCain was positive in its public statements and appeared to be
supportive of Pakistans efforts in the fight against militancy. In Kabul, it was more critical of Pakistan an approach that
raises hackles here and makes possible cooperation between the three countries all that more difficult. Certainly, the revival
of the Quadrilateral Coordination Group and Russian diplomacy are other important facets of the Afghan riddle. However,
it is Afghanistan, Pakistan and the US that are central to a durable peace in Afghanistan.

Published in Dawn, July 9th, 2017

For peace
A. Rauf K. Khattak July 09, 2017

The writer is a former civil servant and former minister.

THE longest war in the United States of Americas history is not going according to plan. The US army, however, does not
accept this reality which is actually quite clear. The generals always blame their failure or lack of progress on the paucity of
resources. Humiliation is difficult to swallow when the US calls itself the world superpower and its army prides itself as
being the worlds best.

If the objectives could not be achieved with 150,000 troops, how can they do it now through Operation Resolute Support
with 13,500 troops more than half of them American soldiers who stay at the rear? Can another 3,000 make a difference?
J. William Fulbright in his book The Arrogance of Power says, There is a kind of voodoo about American foreign policy.
Certain drums have to be beaten regularly to ward off evil spirits.

The Russians stayed in Afghanistan for nine years and lost 15,000 soldiers. They had to leave and left behind a surrogate
government which also succumbed after three years. This is no good lesson for the US as it was Russias experience. The
total fatalities of the US in the last 16 years have been over 2,200 the vast majority of soldiers killed in action.

The US wants peace no doubt, but on its own terms: total surrender.
True, they have paid more in treasure and less in blood. But the loss in treasure they can sustain. It has made little dent in
their economy.

The pain of waging wars around the Muslim world has not yet reached the common American man. Afghanistan is a good
ground to try newly produced or not yet tested ordnance like the Mother of all Bombs dropped in April. Has it made any
difference to the resolve of the Afghan Taliban?

The US wants peace no doubt, but on its own terms, despite the fact that its war machine has not brought it anywhere near
the objective. The objective is to establish itself in Afghanistan and lord over the region. It routinely blames Pakistan for its
troubles and repeats the catchphrase to do more.

It is said that the path to peace in Afghanistan is through Islamabad. Sadly, we consider this as measure of our importance
in regional and international affairs. Pakistan may be involved in the Afghan imbroglio as much as India is, but the US
never said that the path to peace starts from New Delhi and goes through Islamabad.

The US troubles are not going to end even if India and Pakistan both disinvest in Afghanistan. The US needs to be told loud
and clear that the responsibility for peace in that country squarely rests on its shoulders. This is quite apparent. Osama bin
Laden is dead; the Taliban have declared that they will never host anyone who is a threat to any other country; they have
also declared that they will come to the table if the US announces that its forces will leave the country. As a nation it is their
inalienable right to demand that.

The American problem stems from optimism, and not its pragmatism. War is politics by other means. The end is to achieve
a lasting peace. America in any war wants total surrender.

That is the behaviour they displayed in the Second World War. After the Casablanca Conference in 1943, President
Roosevelt demanded unconditional surrender by Hitler in his press conference after the moot.

Unconditional surrender was not discussed during the moot. According to historians, it was a costly mistake. This gave the
Nazi propagandists their best arguments for last-ditch resistance. It made the underground German resistance against
Hitler very weak. The war could have ended with less bloodshed.

Similar behaviour was displayed in the Pacific theatre. The use of the atomic bomb against a

prostrate and defeated Japan in the closing days of the war was completely unnecessary. Japan was totally surrounded and
blockaded. Its surrender was a matter of time and it had already made its intention known to discuss peace.

But America had one goal and one alone: total surrender, no conditions asked. In every negotiations after the war there
has to be conditions.

In Afghanistan too there have to be negotiations and conditions to end the war. The aim should be that the end of war
should lead to lasting peace.

A reflection from a prison cell by the German general Kliest ought to be emblazoned above every doorway in GHQs around
the world, The general mistake was to think that military success would solve political problems. Indeed under the Nazis
we tended to reverse Clauseweitzs dictum and to regard peace as continuation of war.

The writer is a former civil servant and former minister.

raufkkhattak@gmail.com

Published in Dawn, July 9th, 2017

Karachi renaissance
Bina Shah July 09, 2017

The writer is an author.

RECENTLY, the Pakistani High Commission in London came up with a campaign called Emerging Pakistan in which
several iconic double-decker buses were wrapped in images meant to evoke Pakistans soft image. The campaigns tagline
was The Land of Beautiful Faces, but, unfortunately, the images included the usual elements of a PIA ad campaign from
the 1970s: virile men playing polo, Caucasian-looking models dressed as Kalash women, and a lone white man standing
and staring at two of the women.

Its understandable that there might be some desperation to peddle Pakistans attraction as a tourist venue. If the Pakistan
diplomatic front would only drop its regressive ideas about what sells Pakistan, this could have been a great campaign. No
doubt Pakistan has many beautiful women, some of them fair-skinned, but it doesnt make sense to exploit the stereotype
of the Kalash as exotic creatures making up part of the nations flora and fauna. Showcasing Pakistans diversity and
richness of culture and art needs more creativity than that.

The Foreign Office would do better to focus on the cultural renaissance that is taking place throughout Pakistan, especially
in Karachi: a flowering not of pretty girls but of artistic expression that had been suppressed during Gen Zias rule in the
late 1970s and throughout the 1980s. Zia and his cohorts dictators never act alone turned a rich artistic landscape into
a cultural wasteland that is only now coming back to life, 30 years later.

The citizens have made huge efforts to humanise society.

The gritty urban sprawl of Karachi doesnt exactly bring to mind a renaissance, but Karachi is just beginning to recover
from the late 1980s, 1990s, and the early years of this century, when its streets were abattoirs, controlled and terrorised by
political parties and their militant wings. With curfews and no-go areas, people became too afraid to go out. Street art had
no chance: political parties used the entire city as their billboard: any form of outdoor sculpture, public space or wall was
defaced or plastered in ugly political graffiti, posters, and banners.
The Zia era and its political repercussions continue to echo throughout Karachi today, where post 9/11 terrorism made
public spaces even more unsafe while the spread of religious extremism still endangers the lives of artists and cultural
figures: Sabeen Mahmud, owner of The Second Floor, was killed in 2015 by self-radicalised terrorists, while the famous
qawwali singer Amjad Sabri was assassinated in 2016 apparently by the Pakistani Taliban in Karachi.

Karachis citizens have made huge efforts to humanise a society that had become brutal and weaponised. Slowly, public
shows and exhibitions have returned; museums like Mohatta Palace and the Sadequain Gallery at Frere Hall have grown
popular thanks to private stewardship, corporate sponsorship and government support. Sheema Kermani, whose Tehreek-
i-Niswan dance group survived even under Zias persecution, celebrated the arangetram of a young student, the first of its
kind ever in Karachi.

It was the 21st-century dictator, Gen Pervez Musharraf, who asked the acclaimed actor Zia Mohyeddin to establish and
oversee the National Academy of Performing Arts, a state of the art school for the performing arts in 2005, in order to
promote his vision of enlightened moderation. Karachis cultural cachet has come full circle from taboo practice to a
cornerstone of domestic policy that uses soft power to counter internal violence and terrorism.

The physical city itself is now part of a new phase of renaissance, with its artists and architects joining hands to save
Karachis endangered buildings in the old parts of the city, and renew the teahouse culture where students and artists
gathered in its cafs to talk literature and politics in the 1950s and 1960s. Karachis artists have been hard at work
beautifying city spaces with truck art motifs and street murals, although these need regular maintenance to maintain their
impact.

In December 2016, a group of dynamic young architects and artists, the Pakistan Chowk Initiative, restored a triangle at
the heart of Karachis Old Town which housed libraries, art schools, small publishing houses and translation centres, and
the myriad teahouses. The group cleaned up and rebuilt the square, where visiting artists from Spain and Germany built a
contemporary art installation. Dozens of amateur artists now gather at Pakistan Chowk to paint and draw on Sundays.

Today, Karachi is a city in spring: every kind of artistic cultural activity imaginable takes place or is being practised, planned
out and engaged with every day. This year, Karachis first biennale will take place later in October. The energy from its
artistic renaissance is revitalising a city that its residents had long thought lost to violence and conflict, division and hatred.
This is the revolution that should be promoted to the world: a country in bloom at last, visually, culturally and emotionally.

The writer is an author.

Twitter: @binashah

Published in Dawn, July 9th, 2017

A stalled democracy
Cyril Almeida July 09, 2017

The writer is a member of staff.

EITHER way, weve hit a wall. Nawaz goes or Nawaz stays, the transition to democracy has stalled.

And its hard to see whatll get it back on track.

The great big evolution in this transition, the one triggered by the ouster of Musharraf, was in electoral democracy. You
win, you stay full term, no funny business.

That understanding was forged (fake) between Nawaz and BB and it was forged in the fire of more than two decades of
mutual self-destruction. When we fight, they win an equation as obvious as it was difficult to accept.

But once it was internalised, a real move forward was possible. You win, you stay full term, no funny business. The
Charter of Democracy.

Asif initially tried to tamper with that, but he was quickly back. Memories are short and the episode short-lived, but the
only direct attack against democracy in this transition was launched by the PPP against the PML-N.

It made sense. Asif was a novice (beginner) and not bound by the pact BB had made. He had always been collateral damage,
not the reason the fires had raged before nor the real target of the flames.

A tragedy of our democracy is that it is made out to be about someone

elses loss.
So he tried to chuck out Shahbaz in Punjab. It didnt cost Asif at least not immediately but it did cost all of us.

Politics is full of such ironies, but this one is especially bittersweet (sentimenta): had Asif not ousted Shahbaz in Punjab,
Iftikhar Chaudhry could have remained in limbo (midpoint).

But because Asif used the courts and the Dogar interloper, he brought the iron gavel of Chaudhry crashing on all our heads.

Asif eventually paid a merciless price, the Sharifs even landing memogate in the court of Chaudhry. But Asif is gone, beaten
back to his base in Sindh. The rest of us are still here.

Ask yourself this: if it werent for Chaudhry, would we even be here today, a country in suspense, wondering if another
elected prime minister is about to marched to the political guillotine?

Yet, for all of Asifs sins, the stalling of the democratic project was also begun with him. He was its first victim.

Asif will never get a fair shake, not now, not ever, but there is a mystery at the heart of Zardaris PPP. Why has he let it
collapse so?

It boggles the mind, an implosion so spectacular outside Sindh that its embarrassing to even deploy the Asif-has-achieved-
in-10-years-what-the-boys-couldnt-in-30 argument.

Its easy to blame corruption. Zardaris love for property and shady deals are epic vices. But everything weve learned,
everything weve seen in the repeated swatting aside of Bilawal, is of a man who is hungry for more; a man hungry for
politics.

Even from the straightforward approach of a man desperate to get back in the political game just to make more money, a
subdued, self-sabotaging Asif makes no sense.

Better to run the IK path of electables or the Sharif path of crony capitalism than to shut yourself out of the game altogether.
It makes no sense, except for this: Asif doesnt believe the boys will ever let him return to power.

Why struggle for Punjab or in KP if in your heart of hearts, you dont think theyll ever allow you to return to the top of the
pile? Why not just protect the base and plot for second best?

Scoff at it, decry it, but Zardaris predicament is about a devastating power struggle and one sides perception of the other.
And not to put too much of a gloss on it it is, after all, Asif but it is about breaking the civilians.

Asif was their first victim.

Now, its Nawazs turn. It makes a difference if he survives or not. Democratic form is the most obvious path to democratic
substance.

But already something else has been signalled across this land. On this day, a day before the submission of a report that
seems more anticipated than the results of election night, it is shockingly clear:

Nawaz can be ousted.

That right there is the transition hitting a wall. Nawaz may survive. He may not. But hell only survive as Nawaz the prime
minister that the country believed the boys could have ousted if they wanted to.

That right there is the power equation. And Nawaz is on the wrong side of it.

But forget about Nawaz. And Asif.

And IK. A tragedy of our democracy is that it is made out to be about someone elses loss.

Oh no, theyre after Asif. Actually, Asif deserves it. Oh no, theyre after Nawaz. Well, maybe Nawaz deserves it. Oh no,
theyve got it in for IK. But could IK have behaved better?

Tomorrow or a week from tomorrow or a month from tomorrow, Nawazs fate will be clear. But the fate of the transition to
democracy already is.

If they can get the prime minister, the transition is about as weak as it was when it began.

Thats our loss, yours and mine. Democracy isnt Nawaz, Asif or IK; its what they, the boys, can snatch from us.
And that brings us to the final problem. Survive or not, Nawaz already looks like a loser. Win the election next year and a
template already exists to bleed him carefully over the next five years.

And so from inside that wretched pit, the one the transition may have plunged into, there is that desperate temptation:
may as well let IK have his turn?

The transition to democracy, after all, may already have hit a wall.

The writer is a member of staff.

cyril.a@gmail.com

Twitter: @cyalm

Published in Dawn, July 9th, 2017

Modis American embrace

Munir Akram July 09, 2017

The writer is a former Pakistan ambassador to the UN.

THE widely circulated picture of Indian Prime Minister Modi clinging to a visibly uncomfortable Donald Trumps breast
illustrates the nature of the emerging relationship between India and the US.

Modis eagerness to serve as Americas natural partner to contain a rising China is based on the expectation that this will
provide India multiple advantages: latest military equipment and technology; expanded US investment; unconditional US
support against Pakistan, a free hand in Kashmir and vigorous ( energetic ) endorsement of Indias great power ambitions
in South Asia, the Indian Ocean and beyond.

The Indo-US alliance has grave security implications for Pakistan. It will exacerbate (worsen) the military imbalance and
make India even more intransigent (inflexible) on Kashmir and belligerent towards Pakistan. Indeed, to deflect attention
from its failed oppression of the popular Kashmiri revolt, Modi may feel sufficiently emboldened (encouraged) to actually
attempt a cross-LoC surgical strike against Pakistan, provoking a war which is unlikely to remain limited.

However, the alliance with America will involve challenges and costs for India which Modi appears to have discounted.

The US and India are unequal powers. As the practitioner (expert) of the Art of the Deal, Trump will not be shy to exercise
the leverage (influence) which the US will progressively acquire over India, eg, to open Indias restrictive trade regime or
curtail its traditional ties with Russia and Iran. To sustain the partnership, India will have to learn to bend, often, to
Americas will, compromising the independence of its foreign policy.

The alliance with America will involve challenges and costs for India.
As Pakistan discovered, defence ties with the US can be a mixed blessing. The arms and technology tap can be turned on
and off by Washington to secure desired behaviour from its allies and partners. When Lockheeds F-16 production is
relocated to India, will the US, as it did with Pakistan, implant software to neutralise the aircrafts operational capabilities
in a crisis? New Delhi will never be sure that any equipment it acquires from the US, or Israel, will not be compromised if
India attempts to use this for purposes other than those endorsed by the US.

While the US will wish to use India to strategically harass China, it may be more reluctant to support all Indias aims against
Pakistan and other smaller neighbours. As a global power, the US will want to retain direct influence over Pakistan and
other South Asian states rather than delegate this to India.

Undeterred by such considerations, Modi seems to have embarked already on his assigned mission to contain China. India
is the only major country to reject Chinas Belt and Road initiative. It provoked China by inviting the Dalai Lama to disputed
Arunachal Pradesh/south Tibet. And, it has blocked Chinese road construction on Chinese territory along the Bhutan-
China border. Beijing has demanded the withdrawal of Indian troops as soon as possible and reminded India of the
lessons of history, ie Indias 1962 defeat.

In his book, Implosion: (collapse) Indias Tryst with Reality, John Eliot argues that India is not well placed to confront
China. Although Indias GDP is growing annually at seven per cent and China at 6.5pc, the gap is widening since the Chinese
economy is more than four times the size of Indias.

Given that India has been unable to bully Pakistan, it is hardly in a position to confront China simultaneously. Even the
smaller South Asian states are entering into economic and defence relationships with China. The Bangladesh government,
although deeply beholden (bound) to India, is buying Chinese submarines and will exploit its major Bay of Bengal gas field
with a Chinese rather than an Indian partner.

Chinas Global Times asked: With GDP several times higher than that of India, military capabilities that can reach the
Indian Ocean and having good relations with Indias peripheral nations, coupled with the fact that Indias turbulent
northern states border China, will Beijing lose to New Delhi?

Indias vulnerabilities are extensive. Kashmir remains Indias Achilles heel (where, so far, China has urged Pakistan to
exercise restraint). India is fighting 17 active insurgencies in 119 districts (according to former prime minister Manmohan
Singh), including the Naxalite, Naga and Mizo rebellions, the latter two in areas adjacent to China. With millions of Muslims
and lower caste Hindus alienated by BJP-RSS inspired discrimination and violence, India is also fertile ground for civil
chaos.

Despite the grave implications of the Indo-US alliance, Pakistan should exercise strategic patience. India is on the wrong
side of history. It is building alliances with distant powers, the US and Israel, both of which are disliked by the people if not
all Muslim regimes. Pakistan has the opportunity of building strong ties not only with China but also Russia, Iran, and
others across Eurasia who will be part of the Belt and Road initiative, which is likely to have a more profound impact on
regional peace and prosperity than the US military interventions in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, etc.

Faced with Indias growing militarisation, Pakistans primary objective is to ensure full spectrum deterrence against India.
The successful test of the short-range Nasr missile is an important step. Islamabad desperately needs a clear, active,
national Kashmir strategy to support and sustain the indigenous Kashmiri freedom movement. There is no longer any
downside to raising the Kashmir dispute formally in the UN Security Council and other international forums, including the
International Court of Justice.

Despite its imbalanced posture, there is no point in a confrontation with the US. In the immediate future, Pakistan may
need to reach tactical accommodations with the US on Afghanistan in exchange for its active support to end Indian-
inspired terrorism in Pakistan.

Over time, the correlation of forces in the region will change. Indias friendship with Russia and Iran will erode. (Ayatollah
Khamanei mentioned Kashmir twice of late). India may blunder into a conflict with China. Its alliance with the US may
erode if India proves reluctant to actually confront China, loosen its links to Iran and Russia or to open its market to US
trade and investment.

Meanwhile, Pakistan should continue to ask Washington: would not US interests in Asia be better served by cooperation
rather than confrontation with China? Do you really want to step into the Thucydides Trap?

The writer is a former Pakistan ambassador to the UN