Politicians of Bangladesh love to talk, they become happier whenever they find any issue to talk rather than work on it. The Tipaimukh Dam issue, once again has created a controversy and engaged the politicians in rhetorical fighting in Bangladesh.

In fact, Tipaimukh issue is nothing new in the political and diplomatic arena of two neighboring countries—India and Bangladesh. India has been planning to construct a dam near the confluence of Barak and Tuivai rivers in Manipur, within 100 km of Bangladesh’s border. Following diplomatic negotiations, both countries reached a conclusion to talk to each other before taking any concrete steps. Bangladesh was assured by the highest authority of the Indian government that they wouldn’t take any steps which would be harmful for the interest of Bangladesh.

However, all of a sudden, India silently signed a contract with some Indian companies to implement the project. On October 22, the Indian authority initiated steps to form a joint venture company among India’s National Hydroelectric Power Corporation, or NHPC Ltd, the Manipur state government and another state enterprise Satluj Jal Vidyut Nigam Ltd (SJVN) to implement the project. The Indian authorities neither consulted Bangladesh nor even informed the neighbouring country of the new development. After almost a month, international media like the BBC has exposed the Indian government’s initiatives regarding the construction of a dam in Tipaimukh.

The news has understandably angered the citizens of Bangladesh. Environmentalists and agriculture experts have warned that the twin dams, at Tipaimukh and Phulertal, across the cross-border Barak river would dry up rivers and water bodies downstream, rendering vast farmland arid, harming agriculture and threatening food security in the north-eastern districts of Bangladesh.

A joint communiqué issued during Bangladesh PM Sheikh Hasina’s visit to New Delhi in January 2010 said Prime Minister Manmohan Singh gave the assurance that India would not take steps in respect of the Tipaimukh project that would adversely impact Bangladesh. He also reiterated the assurance in an identical statement during his return visit to Dhaka on September 6 this year.

Surprisingly, the Bangladeshi government opted to remain silent over the issue, even after some Bangladeshi media picked up the issue with seriousness.  Since the deal was signed without any knowledge of Bangladesh, the Bangladeshi experts, opposition parties and the media have blamed the government for failing to take diplomatic steps to stop the dam construction, arguing that it is in breach of India’s commitment and will harm the country’s interests. They have also criticized the Sheikh Hasina government for its “imprudence” of relying on India’s “non-binding assurances” on the dam.

But the main opposition party BNP, better known as anti-Indian forces in the political arena, became vocal against the reported steps of construction of dam in Tipaimukh. Though any dialogue between government and opposition is almost impossible,  BNP Chair Person Begum Khaleda Zia declared that her party will extend all out cooperation to the government in protesting against the Indian attempt to construct the dam. She has also urged Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh to allow a survey by experts before proceeding with the Tipaimukh Dam project in northeast India. Begum Khaleda Zia, in a letter sent to the Indian Prime Minister  said, “We think the dam project, if implemented, will be detrimental to Bangladesh but you (India) say there is nothing harmful for us, so we want to send our experts for surveying the entire dam site,”

But Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina came down heavily on BNP chairperson and former Prime Minister Khaleda Zia for not resolving the Tipaimukh Dam issue when the BNP was in power and for now dispatching a letter to the Indian premier in this regard.“She [Khaleda] forgets the issues related to the country’s interest when she leads the government. Now, she has sent a letter,” Sheikh Hasina told during a huge public rally in Rajshahi. The Tipaimukh Dam issue was alive when she [Khaleda] was in power. But she did not say anything regarding the construction of the dam. We had raised our voice on the issue then,” Hasina added.

By this time, Bangladesh has sent a formal proposal to India regarding its intention to dispatch a high-level delegation to Delhi to discuss with the Indian side all issues pertaining to the Tipaimukh project on the Barak River in the state of Manipur.  Bangladesh Foreign Minister Dipu Moni said at a press conference in Dhaka that Bangladesh had sought additional information about the Tipaimukh dam project from the Indian government and proposed to undertake a joint study of the project. The foreign ministry reiterated its position to the effect that India convenes a joint study to understand the likely impact on as well as possible benefits accruing to Bangladesh from the proposed project. It also sought further data on the proposed project to enable experts on the Bangladesh side to study the effects of the project. The ministry has further requested the Indian side to keep Bangladesh, a lower riparian country of the Barak River, an international river, informed of any further developments to avoid misunderstanding regarding the proposed project in the future.

Well, Indian government has once again assured Bangladesh that they wouldn’t do anything which could hamper the interest of Bangladesh. The Bangladesh government seems to trust the Indian government’s assurance. But they don’t want to allow opposition parties to do politics on the Tipaimukh issue. And the opposition parties don’t want to miss the chance to use the issue politically. As a result, instead of working on how to create pressure on Indian government to stop constructing the dam at Tipaimukh, both the ruling and opposition parties are fighting each other to prove who the real patriot is.

By Shaugat Ali Sagor

shaugat@gmail.com

It should also be clear to  the U.S. authorities by now  that coercive diplomacy would not work in Pakistan.

The U.S./NATO helicopters attack on Pakistani border post near Tehsil Bai Zai of Mohmand Agency  on November 26 has created a new crisis in the relations between Pakistan and the U.S. Their relations were already facing serious problems as they diverged on the details of counter-terrorism policy.  Now, the attack that caused deaths of 24 Pakistani soldier and 2 officers has shocked everybody in Pakistan.  It was a massive raid that could be described as the most unfortunate development since Pakistan and the U.S. began their cooperation for countering terrorism in September 2011.

The first Pakistani response was to lodge a strong protest with the U.S. government as well as with the NATO headquarters in Brussels, Belgium. Pakistan has also suspended the supply of goods, fuel and other material to the U.S. troops through Pakistan. The Balochistan government has disallowed the entry of the trucks into the province that transport American goods to Afghanistan.

The Defense Committee of the federal cabinet met in the evening of November 26 and decided to take a firm position on the incident. The initial steps taken on November 26 include:

1.    Strong protests were launched with the U.S. ambassador in Islamabad and the NATO headquarters in Brussels.

2.    All supplies to NATO/U.S troops in Afghanistan were suspended.

3.    The U.S. has been asked to vacate the Shamsi airport in Balochistan which it had been using since October 2001.

4.    A high level army investigation has been launched about the incident.

5.    The Army authorities who reviewed the situation decided to take measures to strengthen security of border check posts for an appropriate response to any attack.

6.    The federal government plans to take other political parties and leaders in confidence about the incident.

The key issue is to determine if the attack was a mistake, over-reaction caused by frustration of American/NATO troops to control the Taliban in Afghanistan or a deliberate move as a part of changed U.S. policy towards Pakistan, i.e. a policy of targeting Pakistani areas by quick air attacks.  Though the Pak Army has not completed its investigation it is assumed by most political and security circles in Pakistan that it was a deliberate attack, given the magnitude of the assault and deaths of the security personnel.

It is interesting to note that on November 25 the Commander of NATO/U.S troops in Afghanistan visited Islamabad to discuss security issues and cooperation with Pakistan’s Army Chief, General Ashfaq Pervez Kayani. The attack on Pakistani border post took place one day later.  Pakistan’s military authorities would seek a total review of rules of military engagement on the Pakistan-Afghanistan border in order to avoid the repetition of such an attack in the future.

Pakistan’s tough stand does not aim at termination of its relations with the U.S. It wants to continue working relations with the U.S. but with mutual respect. The suspension of NATO supplies through Pakistan is expected to be withdrawn only after the issues arising out of the border incident are settled to Pakistan’s satisfaction.

On the one hand the U.S. complains about Pakistan’s “double game,” that is, supporting some militant Islamic groups, while, at the same time, and seeks greater cooperation. On the other hand the border attacks make it difficult for the Pakistan military to cooperate with the U.S.  The same is the situation for the civilian government. It cannot work closely with the U.S. if the border attacks continue.      It should also be clear to  the U.S. authorities by now  that coercive diplomacy would not work in Pakistan.

The civilian government is already facing a difficult situation due to the MEMO issue, i.e., (the Pakistani memo through Mansoor Ijaz) and the Supreme Court’s decision to reject the review of the NRO judgment of December 2009. On top of all this, comes the attack on the check post, raising serious doubts about the long term viability of the state.

The U.S. recognizes the importance of Pakistan for controlling religious extremism and religious extremism but it humiliates Pakistan by public denunciation and accusation that its security establishment is partly linked with some militant groups.

It is advisable that the U.S. and Pakistan work towards addressing their bilateral problems and restore the environment of trust and confidence.  They cannot continue with the current tensions for a long time.  They need to accommodate each other so that the dialogue process is revived.

If the current tensions between Pakistan and the U.S.,persist they are likely to conflict with each other at the Bonn conference on December 5 which will adversely affect the prospects of finding an acceptable framework of peace and stability in Afghanistan.

The current efforts to seek peace in Afghanistan require a close cooperation among the United States, Pakistan and Afghanistan. Therefore, they need to develop reliable working arrangements. However the U.S. will not be able to dictate terms and strategies for elimination of terrorism.  The U.S. would have to avoid attacks on Pakistani border security posts.

By Dr. Hasan Askari

The way has been paved in India for international retail chains to enter the market force in a big way. Last week, the Indian government allowed 100 percent FDI (foreign direct investment) in single-brand retail and 51percent in multi-brand retail. Overseas companies have to invest at least $100 million, half of which must be spent on developing back-end infrastructure. According to India’s Commerce Minister, Anand Sharma, this move will create up to 10 million jobs.

While those jobs are yet to start coming, the government’s move created a tumultuous uproar in the Parliament, with the opposition including the BJP and the left parties threatening to move adjournment motions on this issue. One of the government’s allies, the Trinamool Congress too joined the opposition to protest against the government’s move. Jayalalithaa, the Chief Minister of the southern state of Tamil Nadu went so far as to accuse the Central government of opening up the retail sector under pressure from a few retail giants. She has said she won’t allow multi-brand global retailers to set up shop in her state. CAIT, a trader’s association has called for an all-India bandh (protest) against the government’s move on December 1.

So far, Wal-Mart has set up 14 stores in India through a joint venture with Bharti Enterprises. Metro AG has six wholesale stores, while Carrefour opened its first outlet in the country last year.

The skepticism for and even resentment towards FDI in retail in India isn’t too unfounded. One only has to look to the US to understand how giant retail stores like Wal-Mart swallow local businesses and crush competition. Moreover, in a country like India, where trade is governed through a multi-tier system of middlemen and brokers, the entry of big retail is likely to ruthlessly exterminate all links in the chain so the retailer can buy directly from the producer. Which can lead to the optimistic assumption that small farmers will benefit from the process. However, this isn’t accurate either. Retail giants like Wal-Mart work on the premise of offering the cheapest prices. In order to do this, they also buy cheap.

On its part, the Indian government has sought to balance the scenario by restricting the entry of international retailers to 37 urban centres with a population of one million or more. This doesn’t really mean much as in any case, multinational corporations are unlikely to start operations in smaller centres to begin with. Similarly, making it mandatory to have 50 percent of the investment in the rural sector doesn’t have much meat. For any supply-chain system that works with farmers and brings produce to urban shelves, it automatically entails having some operations in villages, from where the supply comes.

The argument about big retail creating millions of jobs lacks substance too. In the U.S. a single Wal-Mart store has the capacity to put tens of thousands of mom and pop stores out of business, while generating no more than 3,000 jobs. In India, the unorganized retail trade is estimated to give employment to more than 40 million people. Involved in this process are pansaaris, neighbourhood grocery stores called kirana shops, hardware stores, weekly village markets or haats, paan-tobacco shops as well as pavement vendors. A huge workforce, currently working in the 12 million existing retail outlets may get pushed out of business when big retail enters the scene. A few may find employment in the multinational retail stores; however, even that is subject to their education and knowledge of English. And even after meeting all the big retailer’s requirements, a lot of people will be left unemployed, simply because the number of jobs won’t match the employment needs.

It is not left to doubt that small shopkeepers will lose out to the big retail sharks who thrive on predatory pricing and care little about business ethics and fair play. At a disadvantage will also be the customers who buy items on credit and pay at the end of a month. Indeed, the usurping of the traditional buying-selling set-up will upset a lot of people’s budgets while also snatching the livelihoods of many.

How the entry of the big retailers plays out in the days to come remains to be seen. However, if one were to assess their impact on local trade, their functioning in countries like the U.S. are enough indicators. Not only do they change the rules of the business; they also dictate how farming is carried out and infrastructure is built.

By Bhaswati Ghosh

The latest controversy in Pakistan about the memo to Admiral Mullen, former U.S. Joint Chief of Staff Chairman, through a Pakistan-background businessman clearly shows that the political parties and leaders do not miss the opportunity to wage wars of words against each other. The PML-N wants to pull down the federal government and prosecute President Zardari and his close associates for high treason.  Imran Khan is using the reports about the memo to show that the government is subservient to the U.S.  He wants to knock out the PPP and the PML-N from politics and establish his rule.

The poor performance of the federal government and the unrestrained political struggle for power helps the military to assert itself over the divided house of the political leaders. If civilian institutions are not working the major blame is to be shared by the political leaders.

In Pakistan, the parliament performs poorly because the members and political parties take limited interest in it.  The national and provincial assemblies often start their session late and suffer from the attendance problem. The assembly meetings have thin attendance or, if the members are present in large number on some controversial issue, their energies are spent on heckling each other.  The use of un-parliamentary language is common and some leaders are known for rude discourse.

The political parties find it difficult to go beyond their partisan agendas and view the two houses of the parliament and the provincial assemblies as instruments for promoting their party goals.   If their partisan objectives are not achieved through these institutions, the political leaders do not mind by-passing them and adopting extra-parliamentary methods to pursue their objectives. .

The PMLN has launched street protest to dislodge the federal government because it knows that it does not have enough votes in the National Assembly to move a vote-of-no-confidence.   As it cannot succeed within the framework of the National Assembly, it has decided to by-pass it and challenge the government in the streets.

There are no issues of public good involved in the PMLN street protest. It is a power struggle in the tradition of the late 1980s and the 1990s when these two political parties are engaged in a cut-throat struggle for power against each other. In the end both lost to the military.

All major political parties have to share the blame for Pakistan’s internal socio-economic and other problems because all of them are in power either at the federal level or in provinces.  If the performance of the federal coalition government led by the PPP is poor and it has mismanaged public welfare and economic issues, the PMLN is in power in the Punjab whose performance is no less disappointing.   The complaints of poor governance, troubled law and order situation and related societal problems abound in the Punjab.

The PPP counteracts this campaign by highlighting what they describe as the misdeeds of the Sharif brothers, including how their financial empire building synchronized with their years in power under General Zia-ul-Haq and later.

The Pakistan Tehrik-i-Insaf of Imran Khan is projecting itself as the new and third alternative to the two major political parties. The Jamaat-i-Islami is also pursuing the same agenda. It is also attempting to bring other Islamic parties on a single platform but the question of leadership of such an arrangement and the experience of the MMA (2002-2007) deters Islamic parties from creating a new electoral alliance.

The key point missing in the on-going political campaigning is that no political party has offered any workable plan of action to address Pakistan’s most serious problems, i.e. the troubled economy, terrorism and internal security, price hike, power and gas shortages and economic and political inequities.  They want people to help them to come to power which will solve their problems.

At this stage, the chances of removal of Zardari and the PPP-led federal government through street protest are minimal. The PMLN does not have the support of any other political party.  It must build partnerships with other opposition parties but the prospects are not bright for the PMLN to win over support from other political parties

The controversy among the political parties on the memo issue has made it difficult to undertake a dispassionate and non-partisan analysis of what has happened. The government is engaged in damage control and the opposition is using it as a new issue to beat the government. This pattern of politics can continue but it will not help to address the acute problems.  Even if the federal government is changed, the problems of the common people stay as these are.  The political leaders should cool down their tampers and work together for addressing socio-economic and internal security problems through clearly articulated plans of action. They need to strengthen the political institutions and learn to look beyond their narrow partisan interests.

Dr. Hasan Askari

Jammu and Kashmir Chief Minister, Omar Abdullah has revived the prolonged and ongoing debate on India’s Armed Forces Special Protection Act or AFSPA by asking for the Act to be revoked in certain parts of the state. Abdullah had announced last month that the revocation will be brought about and recently met the topmost rung of the Indian regime—the prime minister, the home minister, the finance minister, the defence minister as well as the chief of the army staff. A concrete outcome, however, remains elusive as the Central government is yet to arrive at a final decision on the Act. This only reinforces the disappointment of the many opponents of AFSPA, the most prominent of them being Irom Sharmila of the northeastern state of Manipur, who has been on a hunger strike for eleven years now, demanding a repeal of this act that continues to be in operation in northeastern states.

The AFSPA had been brought into effect in 1958, with a view to curb militancy and separatist activities in the northeastern states. What is baffling is the need to keep an Act that accords extra-constitutional and extra-judicial power to the military in place for so long. And that’s not the only problem with the Act. The very wording of AFSPA is such that it grants almost a licence to be misused. It allows the authorised officer to open fire at any individual, even if it results in death in the event of the individual violating laws that prohibit the assembly of five or more persons or carrying weapons. The officer also has the power to arrest anyone without a warrant and seize and search without warrant any premises they deem to be housing hostages or arms and ammunition. Once arrested, the accused individuals should be handed over to the nearest police station “as soon as possible.”

All of the above show a vagueness of definition of the Act. A crowd of five need not necessarily be out there to disrupt peace; it could be a group of friends or family. “Weapon” isn’t defined either—which implies even a stone or a stick can be considered a weapon. And the allowance for the officer concerned to hand over the people in custody to the nearest police station “as soon as possible” leaves it upon them to decide the length of “soon”. And what provides absolute authority to the military officers is that the arrested persons can’t take any legal recourse against the officers without the consent of the Central government. This is where an act, ostensibly in the interest of the larger population, becomes a draconian law that can be easily misused to terrorize the same people it is supposed to protect.

Whatever it may be in letter or even spirit, in action, AFSPA has actually produced some of the most shocking episodes of military brutality on ordinary, and often unarmed, citizens. A case in point is the particular incident that triggered the decade-long fast of Irom Sharmila. In November 2000, insurgents attached a convoy of Assam Rifles near Malom, Manipur. In response, the troops opened fire at civilians at a nearby bus-stop, killing ten civilians. The dead included a 60-year-old woman and a young boy who had won the bravery award from former Prime Minister, Rajiv Gandhi. The army didn’t stop there. The area was raided to launch a brutal combing operation- all with the blessings (read immunity) of the AFSPA.

In Jammu and Kashmir, a state torn apart by insurgency, civilians are routinely tortured, detained and even killed in custody, often on the mere suspicion of possessing information about militants. Torture methods include severe beatings, electric shocks, using wooden rollers to crush leg muscles, and burning with heated objects. In addition to this, hundreds of women have allegedly been raped by members of the Indian armed forces and thousands of people have “disappeared” without sufficient explanation from the authorities.

Even if one were to give the AFSPA some benefit of doubt, given the Indian Army’s vehement opposition to the revocation of the Act, what makes it less than acceptable is the fact that it is a law enshrined in total defiance of the Indian Constitution. Article 14 of the Constitution guarantees that “the State shall not deny to any person equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws within the territory of India.” How then is the right to prosecute denied to those apprehended by officers under the AFSPA?

Given the undemocratic and unconstitutional nature of the ACT and the gross misuse of it through the decades of its existence, even if the entire act isn’t revoked, in the very least, parts of it needs to be modified. Arrests should be made with warrants and the authority to shoot and kill people should be totally revoked. The length of time accorded to the officer for handing over the “accused” should be changed from “As soon as possible” to a specified time period like twenty-four hours. Most importantly, provisions should be made so as to allow those who are abused by military personnel to prosecute their abusers.

By Bhaswati Ghosh

What is wrong in “treating the winning and defeated candidates alike?” Is there really anything wrong with that? In my last article I had shared a story of people’s victory in Bangladesh. But ‘people’s victory’ in real sense is a rare thing. It rarely happens, and forces looking to demolish the victory achieved by the people are always active. This time the country’s media has pointed fingers to the office of the Prime Minister of Bangladesh, saying the office has sown disrespect to the people’s verdict.

During the historic ballot revolution in Narayanganj, Bangladesh Prime Minster, Sheikh Hasina, was abroad—attending the Commonwealth Summit in Perth. The country was curiously waiting to see her reaction on the result of the Nrayanganj election as her party-backed candidate was rejected by the people. The prime minister invited Dr. Selina Hayat Ivy, the newly elected Mayor to her office. Surprisingly, the Prime Minister’s Office (PMO) also invited the defeated candidate and the PM had a meeting with both candidates. The PM advised both of them to work together and termed the election as ‘brother’s and sister’s election.’

People across the country were shocked. They didn’t expect to see such a scene, where the head of the government is treating a winning leader and a defeated, rejected candidate alike. People of the country, especially the media, started criticizing the behaviour of the head of the government. The PMO expressed a sharp reaction in a formal statement to an English language daily newspaper that said they don’t understand ‘what is the wrong in treating the winning and defeated candidate s alike?

It’s not surprising that the PMO doesn’t understand the difference between the winner and the loser. For the party in power, the election was merely ‘an election of a brother and a sister. Since ‘sister and brother’ are the respectively the first and second winners in the show, there is nothing wrong for them to share the victory.

But for the people of Narayangonj, who gave a clear verdict through ballot in the NCC election, it is something different. The problem is that people in power can never understand the language of the people. In fact, they even don’t bother to try to understand. We had seen this in the process of the finalization of the party candidate before the poll, as the political parties did not even bother to take into consideration the will and desires of the people of Narayanganj. How can we expect that these people will take the people’s verdict into consideration and show respect to them?

The media has echoed the inner desires of the country’s majority. They echoed the voice of the people of Narayangonj, which our politicians think is beyond our media’s jurisdiction. When a certain quarter of the society decides not to respect the people of the country, it is almost impossible to make them understand what the people actually want.

It is interesting to see that the PMO rejoinder has given focus on Mr.’Mahfuz Anam’s (Editor, Daily Star) repeated advocacy for ‘reconciliation and rapprochement’ with the Opposition political parties. My question is did the government or the party in power pay any attention to those suggestions? Of course, not. The PMO also has mentioned the names of Hillary Clinton and Barak Obama in the rejoinder. It is understandable that for the PMO, the NCC election and the national parliament election are same. The PMO considers Shamim Osman and Hillary Clinton similar and comparable political persons.

People choose a party to govern and another party to oppose in the national election. According to the constitution, both the ruling and opposition parties are part of the government. It is the people of the country who choose the party to govern the country and the party to check and balance the activities of the governing party. People want both the ruling and opposition parties to run the country with mutual respect and consultation. Do we see this in reality? Obviously not. When the civil society and media appeal to engage in dialogue with opposition political parties, we hear that the government is not ready to talk with a party who had backed ‘killers’ in past. They claim that people have given them the absolute majority to rule the country. Well, the people of Narayanganj have given absolute verdict for the NCC to be run by a clean politician like Selina Hayat Ivy. They have rejected Shamim Osman, who has become a symbol of ‘terrorism’. How come the PMO ask them to work together?

We the ordinary people, living abroad, support the stand of the media. We think the prime minister has insulted the sentiments of the people living in the country and abroad, has undermined the verdict of the people of Narayanganj. We had expected an apology from the ruling party for its failure to realize the people’s desire in the process of selecting a candidate. Once again, we expect that the government would say sorry to the people of Narayangonj for undermining their verdict and insulting their sentiment.

Shaugat Ali Sagor is a Toronto-based journalist. shaugat@gmail.com

Imran Khan’s public meeting in Lahore on October 30 has caused a major upset in Pakistani politics.  It was more impressive than the public meeting organized by the PMLN on October 28.

Both the major parties – Pakistan People’s Party and the Pakistan Muslim League Nawaz Group – have taken a note of Imran’s public meeting because it has caused the first major challenge to their primacy in Pakistani politics.  They are down playing the impact of the public meeting.  The PMLN leadership is accusing the establishment (read the Army and the ISI) of extending cooperation to Imran Khan for holding the public meeting. Some of the PMLN leaders describe him as the product of the establishment for building pressure on them. The PMLN has not so far produced any credible evidence to substantiate their charge.

Imran Khan and his supporters, especially the youths, are overjoyed by their unexpected success of holding a huge public meeting.  They think that Pakistan is at the brink of an “Imrani Revolution” that will sweep aside any political party or foreign country targeted by Imran Khan.  Their overenthusiasm has led them to draw conclusions about all-Pakistan politics on the basis of Imran’s success in mobilizing people in central and north Punjab.

The PPP and the PMLN will have to adjust their policies to the rising popularity of Imran Khan. Though both parties are adversely affected by this, greater negative impact is likely to be for the PMLN. Imran Khan has shown his strength in Central and Northern Punjab which have traditionally been the strongholds of the PMLN.  The people came from other areas for Imran’s meeting but the main support came from Lahore and Central and north Punjab.

Imran Khan’s Pakistan Tehrik-i-Insaf has an ideological overlap with the PMLN because both manifest the political-right, nationalist and Islamic orientations. As a matter of fact, the PMLN will have to cope with the growing polarization in the political-right and Islamic politics. More groups from this side will be competing for votes in the next general elections.

The Jamaat-i-Islami boycotted the 2008 elections but it is expected to contest the next elections. Other components of the MMA will be contesting elections in their individual capacity. The JUP has practically disappeared from the political scene but there are a number of Islamic groups, identified with the Bralevi and Deobandi Islamic traditions that have become very active in Karachi and the Punjab. Some of them are thinking of taking part in the next general election.  The PMLQ will be another contender for votes.  Now, a new claimant, Imran Khan, has come on the political scene to challenge the PMLN. All this will divide political right and Islamist votes.

The PPP and the PMLN will have to focus on two major issues to cope with Imran Khan’s challenge.   First, the federal and provincial governments will have to pay more attention to governance and corruption issues.  The performance of these governments in managing administrative and political affairs has been abysmal.  All governments are tainted with excessive use of state machinery and resources for personal advantage and money-making.

Second, the leadership of both parties will have to pay more attention to resentment and alienation within their parties.  A good number of leaders and activists in the PPP and the PMLN are unhappy with the personalized management of the party affairs by their respective leadership.   Now, they will have to pay more attention to the grievances of these leaders so that they do not join Imran Khan.

These alienated leaders of the PPP and the PMLN as well as others, including some leaders of the PMLQ view Imran Khan’s rise as an opportunity to increase their bargaining power vis-à-vis their current party by talking about the option of joining Imran Khan. Some of them will actually join him, hoping that the Imran wave caused by the show of strength in Lahore will ensure their electoral triumph. Some people who have secure constituency are expected to join him in the hope that they can acquire nationwide political salience by riding on Imran’s bandwagon.

There are some new groups coming up like the one being set up by Jahangir Tareen (PMLF) and others from PMLQ, projecting them as technocrats but from the same political spectrum.

Imran Khan can definitely be described as one of the frontrunners. However, he and his enthusiastic supporters should recognize that they cannot become number one party in the elections unless they go beyond sloganeering or criticism of the two major political parties. They need to provide a plan of action to solve the problem of corruption in a society where corruption exists at all levels. How would they salvage the troubled economy and free Pakistan from dependence on the U.S.?  From where they will get “angel-candidates” who will be fully selfless? They will have to sustain and enlarge their support base within and outside Punjab. The key political issues in other provinces are not necessarily identical with the Punjab. In other provinces the issues of ethnicity and provincial identity and rights are more important.

By Dr. Hasan Askari

Democracy is not the best form of government, it merely is better than others that have been tried. Take the case of communalism and the rise of communal violence in India. Historian Bipan Chandra has pointed out in his seminal study, “Communalism in Modern India”, that communal riots in India rose along with the spread of mass democratic politics during the period of British rule. It is not unnatural, therefore, that post-independence, communal and caste-based mass violence can and has been organized and abetted by those in power- elected democratically by the masses. Among others, two major of such institutionalized violence have been the two pogroms against religious minorities- one in 1984 and the other more recently, in 2002. In both cases, like Nero, those in power looked elsewhere while the country burnt. Compounding the failure of the executive, has been the failure of the judiciary to rise to the occasion.

There are few precedents when a mob carrying out planned, systematic attack on another community on religious ground has been brought to book, especially if it has the complicity of the state administration. Even though fourteen people had been convicted in the Bhagalpur riots case, which too saw collusion between rioters and the police, thirty-one is still a bigger number. One is also reminded of the 1984 anti-Sikh riots, as part of which several attacks were carried out ostensibly at the behest of the then ruling Congress’s leaders. Till date, no significant leader has been convicted and the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) even absolved a former union minister, thought be one of the main instigators of the persecutions against Sikhs. The sting of these brutal attacks and the subsequent delay, and in effect denial, of justice is still left unhealed.

It is in this scenario, that the conviction of 31 mass rioters, accused of burning alive 33 Muslims during the Gujarat pogrom in 2002, offers a silver lining around the otherwise dark clouds.

The killings were part of communal riots that engulfed the state of Gujarat following the burning of a train that killed 58 people, mostly Hindus. The cause of the train fire that killed the Hindus remains to be conclusively explained. An inquiry commission set up by the Gujarat government judged it to be a conspiracy, plotted and executed by members of the minority community. This commission also exonerated Narendra Modi, the Gujarat Chief Minister. A separate investigation, initiated by the central government, found the cause of the fire to be an accident.

The verdict delivered by a special court, set up following a directive by India’s Supreme Court, is important for a couple of reasons. Firstly, the deliverance of life sentence to so many people for a crime is unprecedented. More importantly, however, this was a case in which a minority community was targeted and killed in large numbers by rioters that had the tacit support of the state government. Till now, Mr. Modi has not apologised for the pogrom in which more than 1,000 Muslims were killed.

The mob violence took place in a village called Sardarpura in north Gujarat. As word of “Hindu anger” spread across the state following the train fire episode, 33 Muslims sought shelter in a small house in the village on the night of 28 February, 2002. The very rioters they were escaping from set the building alight. The charred bodies of 28 people were found on the site, while five people died of injuries later.

While communal riots aren’t new to India, they assume a dangerous dimension when the police look the other way as rioters create havoc and the administration, at best, doesn’t seem to bother and at worst, abets and encourages the crime. Whether it was the 1984 Congress government, which remained a mute spectator even as some of its ministers played more than a passive role in killing Sikhs or the 2002 BJP government in Gujarat that is widely thought to be tacitly involved in the violence against a minority community, the fact that high-level politicians aren’t indicted by investigating agencies points to the fact that the justice being delivered is only partial and doesn’t create enough of a deterrent for people in high places—bureaucrats or politicians—to desist from providing complicit or overt encouragement and resources to acts of violence.

Landmark judgments such as the one delivered in the Sardarpura riots case bring much needed optimism to the families of the victims, human rights groups fighting for justice as well as to ordinary people in India. For most such people, the judiciary remains the only hope for fighting the high-handed acts of those in power.

By Bhaswati Ghosh

People of Bangladesh can make history. They have made history once again on 30^th October. They have expressed their choice; they gave their decision in choosing a leader for the newly-formed municipality near Dhaka, the country’s capital. More than that, people of the area have sent a strong message to the politicians of the country that irrespective of the ruling party or opposition they don’t like the prevailing political culture of the country. They have expressed their desire for change, especially in the political culture and practices, in the process of ruling the country.

Someone may raise the question that the election that was held last weekend was merely a local government election. So what is the justification of relating the poll with the country’s national politics? It is true that the Narayangonj municipality election is merely a local government election.  But it became a point of focus, not only at the national level, but even for the international community. More than a dozen countries and international organizations, including Canada, the USA, and the UK expressed their interest about the election and sent their observers on the election day. But the main focus of the election was something else.

Though the election was a local government election and according to the rules, no political party can officially nominate or support any candidate, two major political parties had officially nominated their own candidates. Dozens of central leaders of both the ruling and opposition parties went to Narayangonj to join the campaign of their party candidates. Interestingly, both the main political parties—the ruling Awami league and the opposition BNP—have chosen two controversial persons as their candidate. Awami League nominated Shamim Osman, who is better known as Godfather, is an ‘underworld Don’, while the BNP Candidate, Taimur Alam Khondoker is also a patron of terrorism. There are at least sixteen to seventeen cases against them, related to violence, terrorism and corruption. People were frustrated to see the controversial people as representatives of the major political parties of the country in a local government election.

There was another candidate, who also belongs to the ruling party. Dr. Selina Hayat Ivy, a former Pourasohva Chairman sought nomination from the ruling Awami league. But the party decided not to pick her as their candidate though she has the experience of running the Narayangonj poura shova as chairman. Dr. Ivy, who  was settled with her family in New Zealand and returned to the country after her father’s death to contest the poura election, has no criminal records, even not a single case or complaint  against her. When the ruling party refused to accept her as a party-backed candidate, she decided to run the race and declared herself as ‘Candidate of the People.’ Surprisingly, people expressed their solidarity and support for Dr. Ivy. Most of the media started to focus on her clean image and capability of running a local government unit. On the other hand, the media also spotlighted all the controversy and criminal records of the two political party candidates. Intellectuals and civil society members openly expressed their support for Dr. Ivy. The election campaign took a new dimension, it became a contest of peace against violence, and partisan politics against fair, pro-people politics.

The people of Narayangaonj didn’t make any mistake in their ultimate decision. In the prestigious battle of the ballot, Dr. Ivey polled 180,048 votes as opposed to the ruling party nominated candidate, Shamim Osman’s 78,705 votes. Though the BNP-backed mayoral candidate, Taimur Alam Khandaker, announced a boycott of the polls only hours before the voting commenced, he garnered a paltry 7,616 votes. Returning Officer, Biswas Lutfur Rahman, announced that the voter turnout had been 69.92 percent. In her interaction with the media, Dr. Ivey said, “Defying fears of violence they came out of their homes and gave their verdict against criminals, extortionists and land-grabbers. It’s a victory of the people.”

Another mentionable aspect of this poll is the repeating of history. Selina Hayat Ivy won the peaceful mayoral polls on 30^th October defeating the ruling Awami League-backed candidate by more than one lakh votes. Her father, Ali Ahmed Chunka, a popular labour leader, had won the Narayanganj municipality chairman polls in 1974 without the support of his own party, the then ruling Awami League. Thirty-seven years ago, the Awami League chief and Prime Minister, Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, picked Khoka Mohiuddin, who suffered a heavy defeat and came third in the electoral race. This time, Bangabandhu’s daughter and the ruling Awami League chief, Sheikh Hasina, lent her support to Shamim over Ivey. But the people of Narayanganj had the final say. They sent, according to political analysts, a very significant signal to the political bigwigs. They stood behind Ivey, who is seen as a candidate with a clean image with a tested career in running city affairs as mayor of Narayanganj municipality.

Dr Ivey flew from New Zealand to Narayanganj in 2003 to win the top position of the then municipality by defeating the then ruling BNP-backed candidate. She was re-elected mayor in the polls held in early 2010. For the last eight years; she administered the municipality with honesty, integrity and transparency. Even her political rivals from the traditionally opposing camp could ever bring any allegations of corruption, nepotism and hooliganism against her.

Like her father Chunka, she is close to the downtrodden sections of society who yesterday honoured her with a landslide victory. Riding on their support, Ivey thus became the first woman mayor in a city corporation. According to some political analysts, the polls results also exposed the failure of the ruling top brass to read the pulse of the common people.

The result of the Narayangonj City Corporation election has created a new hope and inspiration for the people of the country. They have started to dream of a new era in the country’s politics. They are envisioning a pro-people political culture and the restoration of people’s rights through democratic processes in all stages of decision making. Will the politicians of the country learn any lesson from this election? That’s a million dollar question.

By Shaugat Ali Sagor

October 7, 2011 was the 10^th anniversary of the initiation of the US air attacks in Afghanistan with the objective of knocking out the Taliban government in Kabul. Some special ground troops were used at the later stage. The U.S. mainly relied on the ground forces of the Northern Alliance to take control of Kabul when the Taliban fled without resisting American onslaught on Kabul.  The U.S. security establishment was pleased with the success which it achieved with almost no American human losses. The Northern Alliance was also very happy because they could not dream of  controlling Kabul in the absence of American military intervention.  Pakistan took exception to the handing over control of Kabul to the Northern Alliance but, in a moment of triumph, U.S. policy makers did not pay attention to Pakistan’s reservations about the Northern Alliance. Thus, U.S.-Pakistan partnership for controlling terrorism that began within two days of 9/11 showed the first signs of strains within two months.

Soon after the terrorist attacks in the U.S. on September 11, 2001, there was a debate in the media and academic circles as to who lost Afghanistan to extremist and hardline forces like the Taliban.   Most analysts thought that the Afghan situation in 2001 could be traced back to the global efforts in the 1980s to build-up Afghan-Islamic resistance in Pakistan for dislodging Soviet troops. This strengthened militant Islamic ideology and Jihadi groups that were unable to create a credible alternate government after the exit of the Soviets. Their mutual rivalries plunged Afghanistan into a new crisis.

Pakistan partly succeeded in turning militancy to its advantage in Kashmir. However, this advantage was deceptive because it could not moderate the rivalry among the militant groups in the 1990s. These groups virtually went out of Pakistan’s control in the post-2001.  However, by this time these groups developed varying degrees of societal roots in Pakistan, making it difficult for Pakistan’s security establishment to neutralize them.  Some of these groups and Pakistan’s security establishment tolerated each other and avoided direct confrontation.  Others challenged Pakistan in the tribal areas and mainland Pakistan.

The initial optimism of the U.S. to settle the Afghan situation in one to two years proved misplaced as it moved to Iraq in 2003. It had to adjust its goals from total elimination of the Taliban and a clear victory to a secure exit against the backdrop of an effective Kabul government.

The Karzai government, established on basis of the agreement among Afghan groups at the Bonn Conference in December 2001 survived over the last ten years but its capacity to assert its writ is doubtful after the exit of the U.S./NATO troops.  It has also revised its goal of knocking-out the Taliban to seeking political accommodation with some groups.  The Karzai government faces a credibility crisis because of poor governance, corruption and under-representation of the Pashtuns in the Kabul-based state institutions.

Pakistan also faced setbacks.   It had abandoned the Taliban and joined the global effort to control terrorism in September 2001 with the hope of neutralizing militant groups and stabilizing Afghanistan in a year or so.   This did not happen and the security situation deteriorated in Afghanistan in 2004-05 onwards.  Pakistan virtually lost the effective control of the tribal areas to militant groups.  The mainland Pakistan also witnessed the revival of the old groups that asserted their autonomy and developed links with the groups based in the tribal areas.   It took a major effort on the part of the military to dislodge them from Swat/Malakand and South Waziristan in 2009. In five tribal areas, the military and different militant groups are fighting with each other with no sign of the military overwhelming them in the near future.

The major Pakistani failure is to build a widespread popular support for the military’s effort to control religious extremism and militancy.  With the exception of the PPP, the MQM and the ANP, the political parties and groups maintain either ambiguous disposition towards Pakistani Taliban and other militant groups or express sympathy for them.   Instead of mobilizing support for countering terrorism, the policies of the  Pakistani government have actually strengthened the Islamic Jihadist discourse that supports militancy, including the Taliban.

The decision of drawn-down of U.S./NATO troops from Afghanistan has focused attention in Pakistan on the DAY AFTER these troops quit.  The general consensus among the analysts is that the civil strife in Afghanistan will escalate that will not only threaten the Kabul regime but spillover to Pakistani tribal areas, emboldening the militant groups based in mainland Pakistan.

The possibilities of internal turmoil in Afghanistan make it imperative for the states bordering Afghanistan to pursue positive engagement rather than resorting to blame game or playing their individual games.

Afghanistan and Pakistan need to work in harmony rather than the former picking up unnecessary confrontation with Pakistan because of its obsession with regime-survival and political status-quo in Kabul.

Afghanistan’s recent moves to accuse Pakistan for its internal problem and seeking strategic partnership with India are unnatural developments that may satisfy the personal agenda of the Northern Alliance leaders that dominate the Kabul government. These moves do not serve long term Afghan interests because these policies defy the geographic realities of territorial contiguity and Afghanistan’s economic dependence on Pakistan.

Afghanistan needs to be more realistic and recognize that it needs the cooperation of the bordering states.

Pakistan will have to show patience towards Afghanistan because some elements in the Kabul government are pursuing short-sighted policies.

By Dr. Hasan Askari