Is invoking ‘public interest’ for industrialists justified? Essentially, it raises the old question: how far can land or natural resources be appropriated in the name of development?

A similar situation forced the government to dilute the scheme of a Special Economic Zone (SEZ). Large tracts were acquired “in public interest” and passed on to big industrial or business houses which would put up a factory on a small tract of land and use the rest, hundreds of acres, to establish hotel and entertainment facilities. There was so much protest that the government had to leave it to the buyer and seller to decide. Now that there is pressure on the UP government — one farmer is on a fast unto death — it can consider applying the same formula.

Therefore, the amendment to the Land Acquisition Act was a foregone conclusion. Unfortunately, politics has devalued such an altruistic step. Rising star Rahul Gandhi announced his opposition to the act while addressing the farmers’ rally. The government has promised to follow his advice.

This is not the first time that the government has allowed him to take the credit. Only a few days ago he succeeded in having a project wound up in Orissa where the tribals were up in arms over the installation of a factory next to a mine-mound they worshipped. The centre is probably right in rejecting the project on environmental grounds. But must it seem to be done at the behest of Rahul Gandhi? Politics is very much there because the tribals, once the vote bank of the ruling Congress party, have left it. His address to them in Orissa that he was their “sepoy at Delhi” is sheer propaganda for the Congress which has appointed him the secretary general. It is conceded that development may need to step on the toes of environment or natural resources. But such decisions are rarely explained to the public in detail. There are many instances where a party in power for sheer graft has tilted a particular decision. So long as there is no transparency, government action would be seen with suspicion.

At least the farmers in Punjab have a grievance. On reports of rotting food grains, the Supreme Court appointed commissioners to ascertain the fact. They have reported that as much as 50,000 metric tonnes (MT) of grain have already gone bad. They dubbed the negligence by officials as genocidal and recommended that responsibility and accountability be fixed at the highest level.

They also warned that this is just a third of the wheat lying in the open since 2008-09 in Punjab, and the entire lot could have become unfit for consumption as the Food Corporation of India norms allow grain to be exposed to nature for only a year. In Haryana too, 31.574 MT of grain have been lying in the open since 2008-09.

The rice grown in Punjab last year has not yet been picked up; godowns are packed to capacity. The new crop is still to arrive. Agriculture minister Sharad Pawar, ordered by the Supreme Court to distribute for free the rice which is lying in the open, dilly-dallied before the court snubbed him. Pawar’s heart is more in cricket than in his ministry — a sensitive person would have resigned long ago.

The mishandling of food grain is only one example. The shame of the Commonwealth Games is another. The government doesn’t seem to be doing anything competently, reflecting some kind of panic in the ruling party. Elections are three and a half years away. No doubt, the party has lost some ground because of its ridiculous stand on the nuclear energy bill.

Yet no viable opposition is emerging. The communists, reduced from 60 to 16 in the Lok Sabha, look like losing even their citadel, West Bengal, in the state election next year. The Bharatiya Janata Party is not gaining either. It will soon be in the midst of the Babri Masjid-Ram Janmabhoomi controversy — the court judgment is due this month.

In fact, this is an ideal time for the Congress to rise above politics and take decisions that have long been pending. For example, the draconian laws which have shrunk space for democracy need to be withdrawn, particularly the Armed Forces Act which gives security forces the right to kill without accountability.

The 10-year-old agitation in Manipur would end if the 52-year-old act was withdrawn. Even otherwise, the democratic face of the polity has become deformed by giving the armed forces the power to kill on suspicion. The very name of the act evokes anger in Kashmir and in the north-east.

Still, the government continues to make mistakes. It has decided to enumerate castes for the census which started in the beginning of the year. The Manmohan Singh government has undone the work of decades that Jawaharlal Nehru and his successors had put in to efface the curse of caste from Indian body politic. Caste was the British government’s innovation to create dissensions in the country.

One would have expected Prime Minister Singh or the powerful Congress president Sonia Gandhi to take control of the situation. But it is Rahul Gandhi coming to the people’s rescue. Rahul Gandhi is being projected by the ruling Congress as the next prime minister. How will the country run till then?

Author: Kuldip Nayar

It seems that the militant groups are taking advantage of the involvement of the military and the government in flood relief work. It seems that Al-Qaeda and its Pakistani affiliates think that sectarian attacks would cause a major internal turmoil in Pakistan.  This calculation has failed because ordinary Shiites and Sunnis are living in harmony. They are condemning these incidents in unequivocal terms.  It is only the hard line and extremist groups that are using violence.  This could be an attempt on the part of the Al-Qaeda and the TTP to shift the war on terror to Pakistani cities in order to ease the military’s pressure in the tribal areas.

Despite the success of military operations in Swat, South Waziristan and strong pressure on the militant groups in other tribal areas militancy continues to haunt Pakistan. A good number of people are ambiguous on terrorism and how to cope with it. Many people are not prepared to admit that religious extremism and militancy are indigenous problems. They think that the terrorist attacks are a part of a grand global design to undermine Islam and the Muslims. This distorted view of the terrorist threats to Pakistan creates enough space for the militant groups to survive and expand their operations.

The Punjab government and the PMLN live in a state of denial. Despite the recent attacks they are not prepared to admit that the Punjab based sectarian groups are involved in terrorism. In the past the suicide bombers used to come from the tribal areas to Punjab. Here they by local militant groups. Now, most suicide bombers belong to the Punjab based militant groups, and they get training in the tribal areas.

The denial issue is linked with another problem.  There is a lot of confusion on what constitutes terrorism and what are its sources?   All religious groups irrespective of their denominational identity and political parties condemn terrorist incidents, including suicide bombings. However, most of them are not prepared to condemn a specific group for such activities or they offer excuses and explanations to dilute the charges of terrorism against militant Islamic groups. Some reluctance to condemn them can be attributed to religious-denominational commonalities of some people with the hard line Islamic groups.  Almost all militant groups using violence in Afghanistan and Pakistan, often described as the ‘Jihadis’, subscribe to Deobandi, Wahhabi/Salafi and Ahle-Hadees Islamic traditions.   The strict followers of these Islamic traditions often condone their activities or avoid public criticism.

The well known explanation of terrorism in Punjab can be summed up as follows:

** A Muslim cannot engage in terrorism targeting ordinary people, places of worship and shrines.  One implication of this statement is that such act must have been conducted by non-Muslims.

** The paid agents of Pakistan’s foreign adversaries rather than militant Islamic organizations engage in such activities to destabilize Pakistan.

** Various U.S. agencies working in Pakistan and Afghanistan resort to terrorism or buy off people for terrorism to destabilize Pakistan and thus create a justification for the U.S. and western countries to take control of Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal.

** Suicide attacks or bombings are a reaction to Pakistan’s involvement in the U.S.-led  efforts to eliminate transnational terrorism that does not serve Pakistan’s interests.

** These incidents are a reaction to Pakistan’s military action in the tribal areas and U.S. drone aircraft attacks.

** If the U.S. troops withdraw from Afghanistan and there is no U.S. military activity in Pakistan, terrorism will stop. The Taliban and other militants are not anti-Pakistan; they are fighting against foreign presence in the region.

The chief of the PMLN, Nawaz Sharif, condemns terrorism and the loss of life but avoids criticizing any particular militant group for terrorism. The PMLN’s favorite theme is to link terrorism to the policies of General Pervez Musharraf as well as to the foreign policy of the current PPP government.

All political analysts agree that the Punjab has become the new centre of militant groups. Some of these groups are quite old and well-known. There are now new groups that are said to have broken apart from the existing militant and sectarian groups.

If religious extremism and terrorism are to be eliminated, Pakistan’s official and societal circles will have to discard the Islamic orthodoxy discourse on issues and problems. They will have to rise above religious-sectarian or narrow partisan political considerations and articulate the meanings of terrorism in the context of Pakistani state and its constitution and law.

Author: Dr.Hassan Askari

Both countries are supposed to be coming out of recession. Yet America primarily depends on China and Great Britain has targeted India. President Obama is coming to India in November to assess if New Delhi could fit in somewhere in Washington’s efforts to avoid another recession. Prime Minister Cameron was recently in India and reports say that he has been able to persuade Prime Minister Manmohan Singh to use British technology and services more than India has done so far. More businessmen and industrialists accompanied Prime Minister Cameron to India than to America.

Whether President Obama and Prime Minister Cameron are doing their best to stall another round of recession is difficult to say because their critics feel that their countries have been so reckless in the past — having no supervision on any financial institution — that D-Day can be postponed but not avoided.

However, I saw America doing a bit better than it was a few months ago. More customers are visiting shops, which are relatively full of goods (made in China). But unemployment is more than nine per cent and the dole itself is a heavy burden on the exchequer. Prices of houses have generally come down by 50 to 60 per cent.

The UK has been able to save the pound from going down further. This may have happened because of a successful tourist season. Customers in shops have not yet come back in the numbers they did a couple of years ago. Many industrial units have stopped because of lack of demand. Yet the impression is that the efforts that Prime Minister Cameron is making through visits abroad, particularly to India, will pay dividends sooner or later. People have expectations of India’s growth which is eight per cent.

London is looking to the European Union, hoping that countries like Spain and Portugal will be saved like Greece, which narrowly avoided bankruptcy earlier this year. But if this calculation does not come through, Britain thinks that it may be next to face the danger. Germany is not liked because it has put a different foot forward and does not want to involve itself outside, despite the distress calls from other European partners.

India is being respected and wooed like never before. Prime Minister Cameron even went to the extent of condemning Pakistan on Indian soil. President Asif Zardari visited London soon after Cameron’s remarks but the latter did not offer any apology. What London hopes for now is that in return New Delhi opens up its markets to British exports. England has already responded with more lenient visa procedures for Indians. However, America has not relaxed its visa policy to benefit India or South Asia. In fact, Washington’s security at airports is humiliating.

Obama’s recognition of India is apparent from the number of people of Indian origin he has appointed in the White House. They total more than any other ethnic community. Sadly, America is not willing to give up on the use of carbon. The world expected Washington to agree to cap green house gases but it is clear that this may not happen. Legislators are abandoning the effort to approve an energy/climate bill that would have paved the way for renewable energy.

It’s a pity that the West, which has already consumed a substantial part of the world’s natural resources, has still not woken up to the devastation it has caused. The developing world will have to exert collective pressure on America; the UK and European countries must stop plundering whatever is left. India, Bangladesh, Pakistan and Sri Lanka have been badly hit by climate change. The devastating floods in Pakistan are a recent example.

What I missed both in America and the UK was the liberal thought that once attracted intellectuals and others to look towards Washington and London. It is true that 9/11 and subsequent terrorist attacks in the UK have scared people. Still, I hoped that there would be some individuals or organisations raising their voice against shrinking political space and personal freedoms.

Muslims are the main suspects in both countries and what they undergo is a slur on democratic liberty. I thought the permission by the New York City Council to build an Islamic cultural centre near the 9/11 site was worth commending. But the manner in which even President Obama has gone back on his words of religious equality indicates the lengthening shadows of parochialism in America.

Liberal voices, both in the public and the media, can retrieve the situation to some extent. But the fact is that even those people who feel that democracy is being deformed and mutilated do not speak out. Protests have become fewer, feeble and all too respectful of the establishment. Famous universities, which once raised the banner of defiance, are busy with meaningless curricula and looking out for ways to collect more and more money.

I am not expecting Prof Laski or John Kenneth Galbraith to rise from their graves. But I expect those who remember their sane, liberal and moderate voices to take a stand against the narrowness and parochialism which is consuming whatever is left of free thinking. Who else will fight the encroaching darkness?

Author: Kuldip Nayar

The latest and ill-timed controversy was initiated by the MQM chief, Altaf Hussain, on August 22.  He said in a telephonic talk from London: “The MQM will openly support the patriotic generals if they take any martial law type action against corrupt politicians and feudal lords.”  He also said, “If these generals can topple political and democratic governments they can also take steps to weed out corrupt politicians and feudal lords.” Defending these statements, Farooq Sattar, a senior MQM leader, said that “the country [was] in the ICU (intensive care unit) and needs surgery.”

In another interview Altaf Hussain demanded that the Supreme Court should invoke article 190 of the Constitution to summon the military to take action against the corrupt leaders and exploiters, including the feudal elements.

It is interesting to note that despite wooing the generals, Altaf Hussain thinks that he is neither encouraging the generals to remove the existing political and constitutional framework nor asking them to impose martial law.   This view is not shared by other political parties that have condemned his statements.  They think that Altaf Hussain is giving subtle signal to the military to directly enter the political domain. These leaders also do not favour the Supreme Court assuming executive authority to take action on the lines suggested by Altaf Hussain.

Martial law type action cannot be undertaken without imposing martial law. The military cannot take such an action without removing the present political order and setting aside the constitution.    Similarly, if the Supreme Court acts on the advice of Altaf Hussain, it will amount to overwhelming the executive which will adversely affect the prospect of democracy and political stability in Pakistan.

Altaf Hussain’s statement has three major problems.   First, there is no provision in the constitution that allows the military to take “martial law type” action to purge what he calls corrupt politicians and feudal lords. Similarly, expansion of the role of the Supreme Court on the lines suggested by the MQM will be harmful for the future of democracy.

Second, the MQM is part of the coalition government at the federal level and in the province of Sindh. It should have used its influence with the ruling partners to deal with these issues. The MQM could have moved a resolution in both houses of the parliament and in Sindh Assembly in support of its demand. Alternatively, the MQM could have moved a bill in the National Assembly for making laws to strip the feudal of their land.  Instead, it has bypassed the parliament and its coalition partners and made a direct appeal to the military for a direct intervention in the political domain.

Third, Altaf Hussain wants to use the military and the Supreme Court for fulfilling its party agenda. If these two institutions follow the advice, Pakistan will face more problems.  Pakistan’s experience suggests that the military does not play any political party’s game. If it ever assumes power in the future, it will pursue its own agenda.

Altaf Hussain’s statement is an attempt to deflect the pressures generated by other political parties on its monopolistic position in urban Sindh, especially Karachi. The ANP is more active in Karachi now than was the case three years ago.  The Sunni Tehrik is also making inroads into Karachi.  Further, militant/sectarian groups are beyond the control of the MQM. The same can be said about various gangs that engage in land grabbing and other criminal activities.

Consequently, the MQM finds it hard to sustain its capacity to control reward and punishment in Karachi.  The MQM anger is building not only against the ANP but also against the PPP.  In this fight for domain in Karachi, Altaf Hussain wants to solicit the military’s support.

Another possible explanation is that Altaf Hussain must have come to the belief that the latest speculative reports that the Supreme Court might disqualify President Asif Ali Zardari and the military might apply pressure to replace the federal government with a government of its choice.  Therefore, he may have decided to pre-position the MQM for the post-PPP era.   It is a message to the military and the superior judiciary that if they take action against the present rulers the MQM’s support will be available.

Pakistan’s experience suggests that the military rule and the administrative solutions do not resolve the political and economic problems. The MQM’s latest agenda would undermine constitutionalism and democracy and drag the military into unnecessary controversies, diverting its attention from helping the flood-affected people and countering terrorism.

Author: Dr. Hassan Askari

This is violent in the sense that the protesters pelt stones, but different because they have not taken arms from Pakistan as the militants had apparently done. Nor have they any ‘top contacts’.

This angry, amorphous force has no defined leadership. The baton of the movement is in the hands of the new generation. What binds them together is the anger against the establishment in Srinagar and in Delhi.

It is not correct to say that hard-liner Syed Ali Shah Geelani is their leader. He sees to it that he is not out of step with them. Yet when he tried to convert them into non-violent protesters he failed. The pelting of stones is their way of saying that they do not agree to the various formulas which have been presented for the solution of the Kashmir issue.

Both Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and Kashmir Chief Minister Omar Abdullah have failed to understand the ethos of the movement. The Indian prime minister’s willingness to talk to all sections or individuals in Kashmir, as he has said, is a shot in the dark. He has no machinery to reach them. His dependence on the same old apparatus and individuals will yield no results. They are not relevant in the present situation. His thinking has to be out-of-the-box.

In the same manner, Omar Abdullah’s offer to create 50,000 jobs to engage the youth is too late. He should have done so when he came to power after free elections. The youth movement has no economic agenda. It is a revolt against the entire system. Moreover, the economic package has become a joke because very little is delivered after making tall promises.

To understand the situation, two things should be kept in mind. One, there is no Pakistani hand. Two, the movement has nothing to do with the militants. The movement is not pre-planned. Had it been so, it would not have taken a dangerous shape during the current tourist season which yields income to Kashmir for one full year.

It is a spontaneous movement. It started with the killing of teenager Tufail Ahmed Mattoo on June 11. He was a student and not part of the procession which was throwing stones at the Central Reserve Police Force. Mattoo was killed by a tear-gas shell. Everything else followed.

One incident ignited the other and in no time the entire valley was engulfed by young protesters. No party took part in organising the agitation. They jumped into the arena after the event, not before. The youth is listening to them but keep their own counsel.

Anger against Omar Abdullah was the focus of their helplessness. The shoe-throwing incident at the flag-hoisting ceremony on India’s independence day was a form of protest. The confession of the policeman who threw the shoe was: “I did it because of my affection for my people who are being killed every day. I was beaten up in custody and won’t accept anything under duress. They [the police] want me to name PDP or Hurriyat leaders for that.”

This speaks volumes for the repressive methods of the police. What is disconcerting is that the shoe was thrown from a seat in the VVIP row, putting a question mark against the sympathy of even high officials and civil society members.

Mehbooba Mufti’s PDP is a supporter of the movement. She is a problem, not the solution. Her ambition is power. She wants to step in if and when the Congress party parts company with Omar Abdullah’s National Conference and picks up PDP to run the disputed territory. Manmohan Singh should know this.

However, such machinations on the part of politicians have been the bane of Kashmir. By and large, the politicians and their furtive ways are responsible for all that is happening there. Today all political formations — including the Hurriyat — are irrelevant because the angry youth do not have faith in them or their methods.

The vague, undefined leadership that has surfaced is radical and Islamist. It is Naxalism of sorts, with a pronounced religious slant. Yasin Malik, who is in jail, is respected but how far he can influence the movement has yet to be seen because he is against fundamentalism.

One woman journalist, a Muslim, told me from Srinagar that what was emerging was going to throttle gasping Kashmiriyat, a secular way of life.

Both India and Pakistan have not calculated the fallout the movement can have in their countries. India is too overwhelmed and is clueless. Pakistan feels happy that ‘the enemy’ is in the midst of real trouble. But the movement is something which should force the two to sit together for a sober assessment.

This only underlines the urgency of the need for a solution in Kashmir. Manmohan Singh has said that he is ready for it. This has also been the view of the Pakistani leadership.

I know that talks are going on between New Delhi and Srinagar through the back channel. But the main party consists of the Kashmiris. The sooner they are involved the better it would be for peace in the valley. But the Kashmiri youth, however justified in venting their anger, do not realise that none in India and probably Pakistan would agree to a fundamentalist, sovereign Kashmir on their border.

Author: Kuldip Nayar

Pakistan is currently experiencing the most devastating floods that have caused damage to life and property in Gilgit-Baltistan, Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa, Balochistan, Punjab and Sindh.  Almost 20 million people are adversely affected in the above regions.  The flood water is expected to start receding in a week’s time. This will reduce the intensity of the floods but the problems of the people displaced by the flood will persist for a long time.

One can give some allowance to the federal and provincial governments for their poor and slow response to the floods because of its unexpectedly high scale and an extremely fast flow of water that caused much damage.  The federal and provincial governments and their disaster management establishment lacked plans, resources and equipment to cope with even a flood half of the size of what Pakistan has experience in July-August.  It could be attributed to the traditional lethargy of the bureaucratic structure and poor advance planning.

The military with organizational skill, discipline and technological capacity has shown greater capacity to cope with the disaster caused by the floods. The troops moved into the flood affected areas to rescue people and provide them shelter, food and medicines.

The most serious challenge for the political leaders and federal and provincial government is the post-flood rehabilitation of the people and reconstruction of the devastated areas.  The governments will have to guard against poor-planning, bureaucratic carelessness, favouritism in assignment of projects and their supervision, and financial corruption.

Pakistan’s internal peace and stability are also threatened by religious extremism and militancy.

Karachi has become another site for human-made tragedy. A host of groups are involved in the periodic killing sprees in Karachi. These include the specialized fighting squads of different political parties, religious extremists and sectarian groups, the Taliban and militant from other parts of Pakistan, drug and land mafia and other criminal elements.

The federal and provincial governments are unable to cope with violence in Karachi because the political forces are unable to work together to find a solution.

Unless the major political parties create a shared narrative of what is happening in urban Sindh there cannot be an enduring solution of the problem. The experience of multi-ethnic and multi-communal cities in India and elsewhere suggests that inter-communal and inter-ethnic networks need to work together rather than different groups attacking each other from their ethnic ideological fortresses. These fortresses have to be demolished and inter-ethnic framework of action needs to be created by the major political parties.

The leaders of major political parties do not seem to realize the gravity of the situation. The images of President Zardari’s visit to France and the UK do not send a good message to common people.    Nawaz Sharif is using his flood related visits to attack the PPP in an election-campaign manner. Pervez Illahi is talking about floods to criticize the PMLN government in the Punjab. Altaf Hussain is living in the UK as its citizen but advising Zardari not to visit London. The key question is how much solid work these parties have done to help flood-affected people from the party resources?

There is less attention on evolving long term solutions to these problems because most of us have a narrow and limited concept of national security, confining it to border security, i.e. security against external threat. This has focused Pakistani attention on building big and strong military as a guarantee for securing border against external threat.

Military security against external adversary is important but it is incomplete without internal security which involves societal harmony and development. If the economy of a country is in deep trouble and the society is polarized on ethnic, sectarian and ideological lines to such an extent that periodic internal violence and strife threaten the society, it can never become a viable political entity.

The external strength of country and its clout in the international system depends on its internal political harmony, ethnic and religious tolerance, amicable settlement of societal disputes. The key to creating a vibrant and healthy social order is to spend more financial and technical resources to societal development involving better health and education facilities, provision of basic societal needs and measures to reduce poverty and underdevelopment.

Pakistan faces greater threat from its internal divisions, increased violence, growing religious and cultural intolerance and a faltering economy that relies heavily on external resources. Political violence and terrorism is the most serious threat to Pakistan’s internal harmony and external role. These factors have created a highly dangerous situation of national security than the threats coming from outside of Pakistan. Further, these internal weaknesses expose Pakistan to external interference and intervention.

Pakistan must look beyond military security. It needs to adopt a comprehensive view of security that emphasizes seeking strength from within. If a country cannot hold together internally as a vibrant society, nuclear weapons cannot protect it. Pakistan can become a non-functioning state because of the failure to cope with internal challenges and the failure of the political elite to evolve a shared strategy to cope with these threats.

Author: Dr Hassan Askari

Balochistan was the first province to face floods when some of its districts were inundated with water in July, followed by KP that experience torrential rains causing rivers to burst out of their banks.  So far, KP is the worst affected province. A large part of the province of the Punjab was badly hit by floods (July-August). It was in the first week of August that water entered the province of Sindh. It has wiped out over two thousand villages in the first ten days.

These are the worst floods in Pakistan’s history. There was a forecast for more rains during the monsoon season and some floods were expected. However, no one expected that the rains would produce such massive floods.  Human losses have crossed one thousand. This figure is going to go up as more information is available from flood affected areas and the data from Sindh is added. The dwellings and other physical structures in most villages and towns affected by floods have been totally destroyed. Roads and especially bridges have been washed away, making the movement of people, goods and services from one place to another rather impossible. This adversely hampered rescue and relief operations in the initial stages.  Now, as water is receding in most areas in KP, Punjab and Balochistan rescue and relief work has taken momentum. According to one estimate on August 7, 2010 twelve million people were affected by the flood. This figure is going to go up by another 2-3 million.

These floods have raised several short and long term issues that need to be addressed to cope with the post-flood situation and the floods in the years to come.

Disaster Management:

This is true that the floods were unprecedented that made it difficult for the government functionaries to quickly undertake rescue and relief work.

Even if we give some allowance to the initial problems, the overall performance of the bureaucratic machinery of the federal and provincial governments was poor. The officials were slow in responding to the calamity. They also found it difficult to pull their resources together. They lacked sufficient equipment and training for undertake rescue operations.   Similarly, the relief work (supply of food, medicines, and camps for the displaced people) was inadequate.

Pakistan’s federal government has established a disaster management unit headed by a retired Lieutenant General that also performed poorly. They did not have much on the ground to use for relief work in the immediate aftermath of the floods.

A lot of people helped each other voluntarily in rescuing the old people, children and women. In fact, the first relief came from self help wherever it was possible.

Role of the Military:

The Army demonstrated its organizational capacity and technical skills to carry out rescue and relief work in all four provinces. Its troops moved the flood-affected people by boats and helicopters, provided medical assistance, food supply and the initial care. The Army was ably assisted by the Air Force and the Navy that brought their personnel for relief and rescue work.  The army engineers built temporary bridges to speed up movement of people and goods.   The military showed its skill and determination to help the common people that won it a lot of appreciation of the people. The Army Chief traveled extensively to see that the military personnel were doing the assigned task.

Water Management Issue:

Two weeks before the floods, Sindh and the Punjab were fighting with each other for sharing river water. Sindh insisted that Chashma Link canal should be closed because there was an acute shortage of water in Sindh. Earlier, a number of people were accusing India of denying river water to destroy Pakistan’s agriculture.  Now, when water came in large quantity Pakistan could not manage it.

The whole question of water storage and building of dams needs to be taken up in a dispassionate manner. After the bitter experience of the floods the political leaders need to overcome their narrow regional outlook and work towards building water storage dams or reservoirs. Instead of building one big dam they can think of building two-three water reservoirs in KP and two-three in the Punjab. Similar water reservoirs can be built in Sindh. These can store water in the monsoon season for use later on. These reservoirs would also reduce the thrust of the floods to a great extent.

Sometimes there may be less rain in monsoon but rains always happen in these months. Therefore, some water can always be stored for later use. In some such reservoirs electricity can also be generated.

Role of the Political Leaders:

Political parties and political leaders, including the parliamentarian failed to respond to the challenge of the floods. No major political party or its local leadership managed relief work. The PPP relied on the federal government or the Sindh government. The PMLN depended on the Punjab government. However, no political party as a non-official organization took part in the relief work. The opposition leaders like Nawaz Sharif used the occasion to travel to different areas and accused the government for failing to help the people. His own party’s government in the Punjab performed poorly. The MQM did not do any relief work in KP, Punjab and Balochistan.

The only exception was that some Islamic parties and organizations provided relief on a limited scale.

The greatest challenge is going to be the post-flood rehabilitation of people and reconstruction of the villages, towns, roads and bridges to enable to the people to start their life afresh.

Once the floods are over the federal and provincial governments should review their poor performance and rectify their deficiencies so as to be better placed to cope with natural disasters in the future.

Author: Dr. Hassan Askari

All agreed, as is the general belief in India, that a delayed political solution of the Kashmir problem is responsible for the eruption of occasional violence or protests in the state. The participants expressed grave concern over the deteriorating human rights situation in Kashmir and demanded the appointment of a commission to investigate the causes of the current violence in the valley, where 43 people have died since June 11 when the present wave began.

I have no doubt that the mishandling of the situation and violation of human rights have contributed to the spread of defiance and destruction in the valley. But the youth were equally determined to pelt stones on security forces.

In fact, the reason behind such occurrences is the alienation of Kashmiris from India and New Delhi’s assumption that the people will ultimately come round to accepting the status quo if they were to find the governance just, honest and working for the betterment of the state. The situation has gone beyond that.

There is validity in the argument that the separatists are not allowing the situation to settle down. But the fact remains that people in Kashmir have given Srinagar and New Delhi many chances — the recent one being the year-old election in which they participated to the extent of 60 per cent — to sort out the problem of autonomy. But the two did not do so.

Where did things go wrong? My experience tells me that the more a political party, or the administration at Srinagar, goes nearer to India the greater is the resentment of people who want to preserve their own identity. A government which is seen challenging New Delhi is liked because it gives them a vicarious satisfaction of being independent.

Sheikh Abdullah, a popular Kashmiri leader, understood this. He did not question Kashmir’s accession to India but placated the Kashmiris by criticising New Delhi for eroding the state’s autonomy. For example, he would say that the Kashmiris would prefer to stay hungry if the atta from India was meant to trample upon their right to stay independent. It may have been a fiction but it worked.

In this photograph taken on July 30, 2010, a Kashmiri woman joins protesters in throwing stones at police in Srinagar. Young men have led street protests and stone-throwing in Kashmir during 20 years of rebellion, but now many females have joined them. Dealing with female protesters is a challenge for the police and paramilitary troops struggling to control recent protests, which India says are instigated by hard-line groups supported by Pakistan. – Reuters Photo

Even Jawaharlal Nehru, the Sheikh’s friend and supporter in political battles against the Maharaja of Jammu and Kashmir, did not understand his rhetoric and detained him without trial in southern India for some 12 years. Still Nehru realised rather late that tampering with autonomy had taken the shape of separation and a strong pro-Pakistan tilt. He released the Sheikh and sent him to Islamabad. Unfortunately Nehru died when the Sheikh was in the midst of talks with Gen Ayub Khan, Pakistan’s martial law administrator.

Until then Kashmir was a problem between India and Pakistan. They held talks and fought wars but reached nowhere. The Shimla Agreement converted the ceasefire line into the Line of Control. But the two failed to go further because of their domestic compulsions. The Sheikh returned to power and entered into an accord with then Prime Minister Indira Gandhi that restored some autonomy which New Delhi had appropriated in his absence. But the Sheikh did not have a free hand because the bureaucracy and the intelligence agencies, by then strong, did not want him to succeed. They “treated me like a chaprasi (peon),” the Sheikh often told me.

His son, Farooq Abdullah, much less in stature, tried to retrieve the situation by asking New Delhi to go back to the terms of accession, the centre retaining only three subjects, defence, foreign affairs and communications. Successive governments at New Delhi felt that they could not go back as they feared a backlash. Former Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee was the only person who foresaw the danger in not reaching a settlement. He set up a back channel which almost found a solution when Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif was ousted by Gen Pervez Musharraf.

I was reminded of the promise Nehru made to the Kashmiris that they would be given an opportunity to decide what they wanted to do with their territory. I told them that Nehru had rejected the demand for a plebiscite in his lifetime. His reasoning was that Pakistan by joining Cento and Seato, the two military pacts against the Soviet Union during the Cold War, had changed the context of the undertaking.

In the ’80s, the Kashmir problem became an issue. The Kashmiris too claimed a place on the table for talks on Kashmir. Rigged state elections in 1987 drove the youth from ballot to bullet which Pakistan was willing to provide. The following 10 years saw a running battle between the Kashmiris and the security forces. Thousands died on both sides. The result was a further hiatus between the Kashmiris and New Delhi.

Three things happened. One, the anti-India Kashmir leadership constituted a joint body, the All Hurriyat Conference. Two, a secular movement acquired an Islamic edge, particularly because of hardliner Syed Ali Shah Geelani. Three, the pro-Pakistan tilt changed into a resolve for independence, the slogan which Yasin Malik, the first militant in Kashmir, raised. Today that sentiment prevails in the shape of a demand that Kashmiris decide their own destiny.

The demand for independence may be genuine but it is not possible. I wonder even if Pakistan would agree to an independent, sovereign state when the chips are down. I opposed the demand at the conference in Washington on two counts: one, India will not agree to another partition on the basis of religion, and two, borders could be made irrelevant but not changed. I also cautioned that Jammu and Ladakh would not go along with the valley to the point of secession.

Yet it would be useful to find out what was the solution that Vajpayee and Nawaz Sharif had reached to make the former say: “We were almost there.” Former Foreign Minister Khurshid Kasuri announced at Delhi that they had reached a settlement. What was the solution? And the most important part is whether Kashmiris would accept it? Both India and Pakistan must persuade them to accept autonomy because independence does not seem to find favour in either New Delhi or Islamabad. It can tell upon India’s integrity. The Kashmiris should realise that independence is not an ideal solution.

Author:Kuldip Nayar

His purpose was that they should imbibe the rigours of life in the countryside so that they would not be complacent when they returned to their chair. The communists’ routing in Kolkata’s recent municipal election brings back Mao’s thoughts. The Communist Party of India’s general secretary A.B. Bardhan has attacked the communist government in Kolkata for becoming “swollen-headed” because of its distance from the ground realities and the people’s aspirations.

Indeed, a government which has ruled for more than three decades and has had all the time to experiment with the communist way of administration is either inept in governance or incapable of ruling. The growing conviction is that a communist state does not fit into today’s world of free thinking and pragmatic working.

The communists in West Bengal remained popular, particularly in the rural areas, as long as they were effecting agrarian reforms, transferring power to the panchayats and making the countryside feel that it was the master of its destiny. Both the communist cadres and those in power then sat back. People expressed their resentment by making the communist candidates lose in by-elections. Still the communists did not get the message. Then the people voted against them in the last Lok Sabha election and reduced the Left’s strength in the country.

The party’s politburo considered the defeat an aberration and did not anticipate the mood of the people when state chief minister Buddhadeb Bhattacharjee announced that industrial development had to have priority if economic conditions were to improve. He said that falling living standards and growing youth unemployment could not be tackled without industrialisation.

This was a departure from the communist policy which was primarily based on agrarian reforms. Most ministers, much less the cadre, did not understand or appreciate the new policy.

Even the calculation of the top communist leaders was wrong. How could West Bengal attract industrialists when their cadre had driven them out two decades ago, after humiliating them? The communist cadres had organised strikes and committed crimes which went unpunished because of an indulgent police force. Big industrial houses headquartered in Kolkata eventually moved out.

And when Buddhadeb wanted to bring back the industry and began with Tata’s Nano car plant at Singur through land acquisition “in public interest,” the chief minister failed because he had not prepared the ground. Farmers preferred the agrarian economy to an industrial switchover. Therefore, when the communist cadres, with the help of the police, tried to fight farmers they became oppressors. The cadres showed little consideration for their vote bank, the farmers. The West Bengal government committed atrocities and failed to make any headway. It was inevitable.

The Left did not understand — it does not do so even now — that the support won through improving village life could not be diverted to industry. Farmers could not be expected to hand over their land for cash which would not last them for life.

The West Bengal government should have realised that the land acquired for industry did not come under the purview of public interest. How could the Left create something akin to a special economic zone when it had vehemently opposed the Union government’s decision to have such exclusive estates?

The reason why Indian Maoists have spread to nearly 200 districts is not because they use force but because they pay special attention to the development of the countryside where the tribals and the marginalised live. They have not made industry their priority and have apparently stayed with agrarian needs. B.D. Sharma, an eminent activist, was right when he asked the Indian president in an open letter to allow tribals their traditional life in forests, mountains and mines, which the global economy requires for development, to check the spread of Maoists.

But the communists, unlike the Maoists, have confidence in the parliamentary system. They have come to put their faith in the ballot, not the bullet. The Left in West Bengal should, however, realise that people’s participation in governance, something which the state under Jyoti Basu encouraged, has been diluted.

The administration in Kolkata appears at the beck and call of the communist leaders who throw their weight around. The Left is not so popular anymore. The reason, of course, is the lessening of liberal appeal in the glittering world of consumerism. But another reason is that communist ideology has become jaded.

True, idealism is lessening in society. But at the same time, people are more fascinated by social democracy than the system which concentrates power in a few hands. Those living in poverty, for example, are tired of the trickle-down theory which globalisation promises in terms of benefits “in due course”.

The 21st century poses different challenges. What strings different endeavours together is the fight against bigotry on the one hand and vested interests on the other. The Left should understand that this battle cannot be won until the people’s say is strengthened. Any kind of dictatorship, either of the proletariat or of others, is bound to fail. The communist ideology has to be reinterpreted.

When the West Bengal dispensation starts to reflect on the causes of its unpopularity in the state, it should consider how to build an agrarian society which can increase the output, enhance farmers’ income and bring about egalitarianism. This cannot be done through steps where the land is acquired in “public interest” to benefit a few industrialists. The communist ideology should be radiating with fresh thinking for retrieving idealism which is receding into the shadows.

Author: Kuldip Nayar

Since then Pakistan and the U.S are engaged in fast-track civilian diplomacy. The working groups established under the rubric of Strategic Dialogue met in Islamabad in June and July to finalize the development plans in the above mentioned sectors.

The Second Strategic Dialogue approved funding for the projects which are aimed at the welfare of the common people.  The U.S. agreed to provide funding for two hydro-electric projects, several clean drinking water projects, health care facilities and several other projects. The funding is to be provided from the Kerry-Lugar-Berman Law that makes $ 1.5 billion dollars available for civilian and development assistance to Pakistan every year for the next five years.  The U.S. has also allocated $ 125 million for up-gradation of three thermal power stations.

Despite the growing cooperation between Pakistan and the U.S. both disagree on some issues. Consequently, positive and negative interaction goes on simultaneously.       Both manifest much impatience towards each other and often distrust each other’s intentions and security strategies.

Some problems are inherent to the relationship because of the divergence in the perceived roles and agendas of the two countries. The U.S. is a superpower and has a global perspective and agenda. Its Pakistan policy is a part of this global vision. However, Pakistan is a developing Asian country whose interests are regional in geographic terms. For Pakistan, instability in Afghanistan and India’s security pressures figure prominently in its worldview.  However, from U.S. perspective, a friendly India serves its global and regional economic and political agenda and it is one of the possible instruments for building pressure on China, if and when needed.

The U.S. does not fully comprehend Pakistan’s concerns about India. These include the situation on the Indo-Pakistan border and the Line of Control in Kashmir and India’s growing presence in Afghanistan.  Pakistan has complained of India’s financial support to the dissident groups in Balochistan.   One of the leaders of the dissident group, Brahamdag Bugti lives in Kabul and he is accused of getting support from Indians.  Pakistan has also claimed that he traveled outside of Afghanistan on Indian passport.   Most people think that the U.S. has such strong economic interests tied with India that it would not put pressure on India on the issues raised by Pakistan.

The U.S. administration is under pressure from the Congress and tax payers who view funding to Pakistan as a part of their effort to eliminate transnational terrorism with roots in and around Pakistan. They want to make sure that civilian and military support to Pakistan contributes positively to countering terrorism and promoting stability in Pakistan and Afghanistan. Similarly, pro-democracy and non-proliferation activists have their preferences for the U.S.-Pakistan multifaceted cooperation.  These pressures increased on the U.S. administration after the Faisal Shahzad incident.

The Pakistani government also faces domestic pressures that have implications for its relationship with the U.S. This pressure is more intense than the one faced by the U.S. administration. No matter how strong is the domestic pressure in the U.S. its President and the administration cannot collapse. In Pakistan the domestic pressure can make the federal government dysfunctional, if not collapse it all together.

Pakistan’s federal government faces a serious crisis of credibility because of poor governance and its inability to address socio-economic of the common people. This weakens the capacity of the government to match its words with action and defend its relations with the U.S. in the context of Pakistan’s participation in the global efforts to counter terrorism.  Every tough American statement and public censoring of Pakistan’s role in war on terrorism embarrasses the Pakistan government in the domestic context.

U.S. Chairman Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Mike Mullen was also in Pakistan in the last week of July. He publically asked the Pakistani government to adopt a clearer and tougher policy towards the Lashkar-e-Tayyaba and the Afghan Taliban network based in North Waziristan.  This built pressure on Pakistan.  On July 28 and 29, British Prime Minister David Cameron visiting New Delhi, reprimanded Pakistan for its alleged linkages with the Taliban and other militant groups. He blamed Pakistan for exporting terrorism.

Despite strains and divergence in their relations, Pakistan and the U.S. want to maintain good bilateral relations because it serves the interests of both.  However, there are negative sentiments towards the U.S. at the common person level in Pakistan for a number of reasons that are not the subject of this article.

It is hoped that these negative sentiments towards the U.S. would gradually reduce  when the people of Pakistan start benefiting from the new U.S.-sponsored development projects.      Further, the U.S. and Pakistan should not engage in polemics in public. The U.S. officials should not engage in public denunciation of Pakistan.  The differences in policies and strategies for countering terrorism should be discussed quietly through the diplomatic channels. This will also reduce the criticism of the U.S. in Pakistan.

Author: Hassan Askri