The havoc wrought by the unprecedented floods will greatly increase the anxieties caused by the Planning Commission’s confession that Pakistan will not be able to achieve most of the poverty alleviation targets put together in Millennium Development Goals (MDGs).

While the Planning Commission deserves credit for the recently released Draft MDG Review Report 2010 the situation revealed by it is quite bleak. The gist of the report is as follows:

MDG1: Eradicating extreme poverty and hunger.

“The targets for the Medium-Term Development Framework (MTDF) 2009-10 have not been met in the three indicators for Goal 1, and it does not look likely that the MDG target for 2015, more than halving the poverty target in five years, will be achieved”.

MDG 2:Achieving universal primary education.

“The MDG target of achieving 100 per cent net enrolment ratio by 2015 requires an increase of 40 percentage points in the next six years (as) compared to 20 percentage points in the last 10 years. The completion/survival rate of students enrolled in primary schools also presents a dismal scenario which implies that almost half of the students enrolled in primary schools do not complete their education. The interim target for 2009-10 was set at 80 per cent and cannot be achieved. Pakistan’s literacy rate remains considerably short of the MDG target of 88 per cent by 2015…”

MDG 3:Promoting gender equality and women’s empowerment.

At the current pace, the MDG target of gender parity in primary and secondary education is likely to be achieved by 2015. The MDG target in relation to youth literacy GPI also seems achievable. It is highly unlikely that the MDG target of female literacy will be met. Progress on achieving the target in regard to women’s share in wage employment is slow. As for the MDG target for women’s seats in parliament substantial progress has been made.

MDG 4:Reducing child mortality.

The under-five mortality rate fell from 117 per 1,000 live births in 1990-91 to 94 in 2006-07. During the same period the infant mortality rate fell from 102 to 75. The results of immunising children against six preventable diseases are not very impressive. The targets for under-five mortality and immunisation are unlikely to be met. The target for saving children from dying of diarrhoea was achieved eight years ahead of schedule and the target of 100 per cent coverage by lady health workers is likely to be realised.

MDG 5:Improving maternal health.

“For the maternal mortality ratio the MDG target for 2015 still requires almost a halving of the ratio…. what seems clear, sadly though, is that many of the specific targets for Goal 5 will not be met in the immediate future, and it will be challenging to meet the targets in 2015 unless Herculean efforts are made to do so.”

MDG 6:Combating HIV/AIDS, malaria and other diseases.

The target in regard to TB has been met, though the figure for TB incidence has not fallen from the 2001-02 level of 181 per 100,000 population. The HIV/AIDS target is likely to be attained. Progress on malaria-related ‘issues’ has not been impressive.

MDG 7:Ensure environmental stability.

The area under forests has only marginally increased and meeting the 2015 target is difficult. Pakistan has a long way to go to meet the target of 90 per cent of the people’s access to safe and improved water sources.

One should like to hope that the final version of the report will show an improvement in its argument and language both. There will be much sympathy for the Planning Commission because it is required (presumably) to cover up for the failures and incompetence of the implementation machinery, over which it has no control. It will not be a bad idea if the commission is provided opportunities to monitor the execution of development plans and the utilisation of budgetary allocations instead of being called upon to write review reports only.

However, while writing such reports the commission does not have to be afraid of being candid to the extent noticed in the present document. For instance, it has unnecessarily tried to shorten the gap between the current indicators and the targets by fixing unrealistic targets for 2010. The net primary enrolment ratio has never been higher than 57 during 1990-2009, but for 2010 it is 77.

Similarly, the completion ratio for 2010 is put at 80 while it had been less than 60 in five preceding years and exceeded 67 only in 2004-05 and 2005-06. The literacy rate has never exceeded 57 during 1990-2009 but in 2010 it is supposed to rise to 77. Similar tactics, though not on the same scale, are visible elsewhere.

Besides, the commission should not try to obfuscate issues with imprecise expressions. For instance, after saying that “the costs of the war on terror have been estimated ranging from between (?) $ 35-40bn”, the report says the cost is “bound to be a non-trivial amount” (emphasis added). That could be called trivialising a serious matter.

The lack of progress on MDGs has been attributed to a number of factors: a sudden meltdown in the global economy in 2008, a spurt in oil and food prices, political instability in 2007 and 2008 (?), transition from a military-led regime to a democratically elected government (?), replacement of a ‘development paradigm’ with a ‘security paradigm’, war on terror, inflationary pressures, power crisis, et al.

As most of these constraints are unlikely to disappear in the foreseeable future, it is impossible to hope for the realisation of MDGs for a long time. Since in any emergency social-sector programmes are always axed first, there are genuine fears that the huge damage done by the floods will lead to further slowing down of MDG-related activities.

However, the international factors affecting Pakistan’s fight against poverty need to be given due attention. We will be quite justified in joining other disadvantaged countries to tell the international community that we cannot have the resources needed to rid a large chunk of humankind of the curse of poverty unless the advanced world redeems the pledges of transfer of technology and economic aid to these poorer (developing) countries that were repeatedly made in the past. But Pakistan must approach the world with clean hands, that is, it should demonstrate a firmer commitment to realising the MDGs than it has so far exhibited.

The government needs to appreciate the importance of the Millennium Development Goals, which simply mean freedom from poverty, hunger, ignorance and disease. From the point of view of a vast majority of the people these goals must receive the highest priority from the state, higher priority than allowed to maintaining good-for-nothing politicians and administrators in luxury and playing hide-and-seek with the world for unusable nuclear weapons. This because relief from want and deprivation is a basic right of all citizens.

Besides, without a properly nourished, educated and healthy citizenry Pakistan and its people will never be able to realise themselves. If there is anybody in authority who cannot understand this he is not only a crank of the highest order but also a criminal who should have nothing to do with the affairs of the state.

Enough is bloody enough! Enough of deafening silence as our people, women, men and children, are mercilessly killed and maimed and widowed and orphaned by cold-blooded murderers and their handlers and motivators.

How many more Safwat Ghayyurs and Mushtaq Baigs and Faisal Alvis and Malik Saads and Abid Alis and Khan Raziqs will have to die before those who are equipped and paid to prevent, or at the very least anticipate attacks such as those that killed these fine men, will begin to do their jobs? Whilst I have started this piece with the mention of officers in the service of Pakistan, I am by no means making light of the deaths of thousands of nameless innocents such as the women and children in Meena Bazaar, Peshawar, or the hungry poor at Data Darbar, Lahore.

It is time that all of us Pakistanis stood up and loudly asked the establishment a raft of hard, even unpalatable to it, questions and demand answers. We must ask why it is that not a single suicide-jacket maker has been apprehended and prosecuted in all the years that these beasts have been going about their ghastly business. We must ask why not even one explosives supplier has been caught and brought before a court of law. We must ask why not one, just one, motivator has been exposed and locked up so that he may not spread his poison any more.

We must ask why not even one facilitator, people who move these mindless creatures with explosives strapped to their bodies from one place to another, has been arrested and put away. Or why even one suicide attack or car bombing has not been prevented by our much-praised ‘agencies’. We must ask why high-profile officers such as young Safwat Ghayyur were not provided such intelligence cover as would have uncovered the surely elaborate plan hatched by the terrorists to get this officer.

We must ask how it was that the man who apparently fit the profile of a suicide bomber almost perfectly: young, hanging about outside a sensitive agency (the Frontier Constabulary headquarters) waiting for his quarry; probably wild-eyed, entered Peshawar cantonment in the first place. I went to Peshawar a few weeks ago and it took my wife and I and our driver a full three minutes of questioning, checking of our ID cards, opening the hood and the dickey of the car, having a soldier peer into the car and so on, before we were let through just one barricade. There were three within the cantonment before we got to where we were going and the procedure was repeated at each one, albeit in abbreviated fashion. So how did that misguided, mindless youth stroll into the secure area to do his dreadful deed?

We must ask too, what is the very first duty of any agency of any state. Surely it is the protection of its own people first and foremost, and as the end result of that the protection of the country as a whole. We must ask if our much-talked-about agencies are succeeding in these primary duties. We must ask if the attacks that have robbed so many of our people of their very lives are the direct result of a massive and ongoing intelligence failure. The frank answer is that the ‘agencies’ have failed and are failing all ends up in doing their primary duty: witness the audacious attacks by terrorists at any target of their choosing anywhere in the country, including that holy of holies, the GHQ. Including, indeed, on installations, and the transport, of the ISI itself.

Which reminds me. There is an email doing the rounds that tells us that our ISI is the best intelligence agency in the whole wide world. The ranking of the world’s intelligence agencies according to this email is as follows: our very own ISI (and more strength to it, I say), Mossad (Israel), MI-6 (UK), the CIA (US), MSS (China), BND (Germany), FSB (Russia), DGSE (France), RAW (India) and ASIS (Australia). Two immediate questions come to mind. If the ISI is really as good as it is made out to be, how come our country is in the state it is in? Second, if RAW is as bad as to be the 9th worst intelligence agency in the world, how come it can pull off actions as diverse as bombing Data Darbar and R.A. Bazaar in Lahore and Lahore cantonment respectively; arming and provisioning Baloch separatists; and attacking our Ahmadi brothers in their mosques in Lahore? Could it be that RAW is not as bad as the list would have us believe, and the ISI not that good?

Jokes aside, however, we must ask the hard questions and also make demands of our agencies, paid as they are from our taxes and revenue. The very first is to say to them to please secure our own country first and then attempt to project Pakistani power across our borders, say in Afghanistan. It is to say, please use all the significant resources at your command — the list referred to also tells us that the ISI has up to 10,0000 (I kid you not) operatives worldwide — to at the very least open the Thal-Parachinar road so that the poor people who live in Parachinar do not have to get to their homes via Kabul, Afghanistan.

May I say please, sirs, sort out the criminal terrorists in your own country before you attempt to broker peace between Karzai and (some of) the Taliban. May I say please, sirs, if you cannot secure your own country how can you possibly have the gall to boss the neighbourhood around? Look inwards, sirs, at the veritable mess this poor country is in and do something about it. Surely you know that the last time the Parachinar road was opened, 10 men and six women were killed and eight men (all of them our Shia brothers and sisters, please note) were taken as hostages. At least find out where these poor hostages are, and have them released. Surely being number one you can do it.

Appeals being made by certain quarters to the military to ‘help’ implement the NRO verdict have annoyed saner elements in the country who regard the calls more as a slur on the judiciary than a service to the country.

Those making such calls should understand that in their innocence they were causing more harm than good to the cause of attaining the cherished goal of independent judiciary for which the nation had rendered sacrifices, observed Justice (retd) Tariq Mehmood, one of the pioneers of the popular lawyers’ movement, while talking to Dawn.

Citing the Nov 1997 instance when former Chief Justice Sajjad Ali Shah had asked the armed forces to provide security to the judiciary, senior Supreme Court lawyer Abdul Hafeez Pirzada has suggested that the apex court could seek army’s help in getting its verdict on the NRO implemented because the military was part of the executive and thus bound to obey the court’s order under Article 190 of the Constitution.

Similarly, Pakistan Tehrik-i-Insaaf chief Imran Khan has said the judiciary could order the military to hold mid-term elections by ousting the present ‘inefficient’ government.

Under Article 245 of the Constitution, the armed forces could be commanded to come to the aid of the civil power only when asked to do so by the federal government, Tariq Mehmood said, adding that military dictatorship would be strongly opposed by those who had always struggled for the democratic polity.

He said he feared that perception and doubts emanating from such demands would tarnish the image of the judiciary.

Eminent constitutional expert Fakhruddin G. Ebrahim expressed concern over the suggestion and said the executive and judiciary were two pillars of the state and if one fell the entire edifice would collapse.

He said compromise was the need of the hour and the country’s progress required everyone to avoid extremism, not to get emotional or draw offensive lines to derail the entire system.

The armed forces must not be dragged into the arena, he said, adding that Pakistan was in the midst of all kinds of crises, from Balochistan issue to terrorism, law and order, rampant unemployment, retarded economic development and gas and electricity shortages. Therefore, adventurism of any kind is not a tangible solution.

“It is crucial to sit down and work out a bailout package,” he said.

According to him, mid-term elections under a caretaker government after cleansing the dirt from the society could be one of the solutions. If the military is called then it would be a triangular conflict involving important pillars, and the executive, judiciary and the armed forces being on the collision course would make the situation murkier.

He recalled that when he was law minister he had suggested that it should be made obligatory for candidates to disclose their assets before taking part in elections and that such declarations should be subject to challenge by voters. But the suggestion was shot down by the Musharraf government.

According to him, the problem started when President Asif Ali Zardari decided to keep the office of the PPP’s co-chairmanship, because the president represents the federation and not any political party.

Mr Ebrahim, however, appreciated Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani’s assurance that the NRO verdict would be implemented in letter and in spirit and said that resolutions like these were needed to save the situation. Mr Ebrahim said that in his opinion the judiciary should have decided the NRO case immediately after the federal government had pleaded not to contest the bad law.

Supreme Court Advocate Naseer Ahmed Chaudhry said the suggestion of calling the military was naive and “takes a short measure of the Constitution and the institutions it seeks to establish”.

“No constitution could contemplate such a situation and the implication it would lead to”, Advocate Chaudhry said, adding that in a constitutional dispensation such a suggestion would never be liked by anyone. “The armed forces are merely a wing and an entity of the executive government and do not stand alone,” he said.

When General Ashfaq Parvez Kayani was elevated to the most powerful job in Pakistan, many hoped that he would efface the shame of eight years of military rule under his predecessor, Pervez Musharraf.

Keen to rebuild the army’s much-damaged domestic image, Gen Kayani pulled all serving officers out of civilian institutions within weeks. The 2008 general elections also slipped by with no obvious military interference, a veritable rarity.

The army chief has also won plaudits for the military’s impressive displays of resolve against Taliban militants, first in Swat and now in South Waziristan. Under Gen Musharraf, earlier offensives lacked public support and ended in ruinous peace deals.

But since the return to civilian rule, in the unlikely shape of President Asif Ali Zardari, observers note that the military has jealously guarded what it sees as its own traditional prerogatives.

On paper, Mr Zardari is the “supreme commander of the armed forces” and his prime minister, Yousaf Raza Gilani oversees the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) agency. But these are, as one senior western diplomat puts it, “constitutional fictions”.

In 2008, an attempt to bring the ISI under civilian control backfired within 24 hours. After the Mumbai massacre, Mr Gilani’s decision to dispatch its chief spy to Delhi was thwarted. More recently, Mr Zardari was forced to reinstate Chief Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry after discrete pressure from the army.

On the foreign policy front, the army has regarded Mr Zardari’s proximity to Washington with scarcely disguised concern. Last autumn, the army publicly protested against what it saw as humiliating conditions attached to a US bill that tripled civilian assistance.

Fresh accusations that the army continues to resist attempts at reconcialition with the disgruntled Baluch will now add to the sense among its critics that it remains unprepared to yield elected civilians the power they would take for granted in established democracies.

Under a media blackout, the vast and resource rich province of Baluchistan has drifted away as nationalist fighters battle Pakistani troops in the mountains, activists mysteriously “disappear”, and long-simmering discontent has boiled over into a clamour for separatism.

After tough negotiations, the political class has now united behind a move to divide the national budget equitably, cease military operations, and lure the province’s most recalcitrant elements to the negotiating table.

If that process is in jeopardy, it augurs poorly not just for Gen Kayani’s burnished reputation, but the very stability of Pakistan.

In a democracy, difference of opinion between the ruling and opposition parties is a natural phenomenon whereas disharmony and confrontation between the organs of the state can be detrimental to the national interest. Once again, the PPP and the PML-N — two major political parties — are on a collision course, oblivious to the dangers ahead. When Mian Nawaz Sharif said that he would support democracy but not corruption, he meant President Asif Ali Zardari beyond any shadow of a doubt. For Mian Sahib, third-time premiership is a matter of life and death, whereas Zardari has procrastinated on foregoing 58(2)(B) and undoing the 17th Amendment. Unfortunately, there appear to be no integrating forces, no unified meaning and no vision to lead us out of the blind alley. It is times like this that the role of leaders assumes great importance. Nevertheless, the recent statement of President Asif Ali Zardari that he respected the judiciary, and all the decisions of the court would be implemented in letter and spirit, was reassuring. However, addressing the gathering at Naudero on the second death anniversary of Benazir Bhutto, he sounded bitter when he said: “Non-state actors were trying to break up Pakistan and institutions were being pitted against each other, but every sacrifice would be made to protect democracy.”

Of course, instead of reacting angrily he should try to remove misunderstandings between the institutions. There is a perception that his statements such as “Pakistan has no threat from India” and thanking John Kerry and the US government without going through the contents of the Kerry-Lugar bill were reasons for tension between him and the military leadership. It is true that a section of the press is up to some mischief, which is also obvious from the reporting of his address at Naudero. Newspapers of a particular group carried stories with provocative headlines whereas others did objective reporting because he was addressing as co-chairman of his party and not President of Pakistan. When he warned those who destroyed institutions in Afghanistan and Iraq, anybody with common sense can understand that he meant the Americans, but a section of the press suggested that his entire speech was against the army and the judiciary, which is not true. The media’s role should be confined to exposing the corrupt practices of government functionaries, and under no circumstances it should pass judgments.

Of late, media in Pakistan have started playing a campaigner’s role, and at least one media group has resorted to character assassination of the president although members of other political parties are corruption-tainted in equal measure. They ignore the fact that during 1988-1999, both the PPP and the PML-N governments had instituted cases against each other, and leaders of both the parties had admitted that those cases were politically motivated. The question is why the PPP members are being singled out and targeted? The answer is simple. The PML-N was overthrown in October 1999, and its leaders had got most cases quashed from the courts except the Hudaybia Mills case. The new case was one of hijacking of a plane instituted by the Musharraf government, on which Mian Nawaz Sharif was convicted, and the rest is history. Since the PML-Q remained in power from 2002 till 2007, therefore nobody dared to file cases against its members. But it is none of their business to demand the resignation of PPP ministers. Nobody resigns on the basis of mere allegations.

Pakistan is in the throes of ethnic, sectarian and tribal violence and there are threats to its internal and external security. Hapless millions are suffering from unemployment, ever-rising prices of essential commodities and exorbitant utility tariffs. It should have been the top priority for the ruling party, opposition parties and the judiciary to put their act together to give relief to the deprived sections of society. The problem is that these hapless teeming millions do not figure in the scheme of things of the ruling elite. More and more people are being pushed below the poverty line giving rise to hunger, disease, crime and terrorism. In these circumstances, a messy showdown between the ruling and the opposition parties or confrontation between the executive and the judiciary could be disastrous. Every patriotic Pakistani is pained to see the prevailing situation, as he had expected that after the 2008 elections, the PPP and the PML-N leaders would learn from their past mistakes and work in unison to meet the challenges facing the nation. But that was not to be.

Despite the vow by the PML-N leaders not to destabilise the PPP government at the centre, they continue to tread the beaten track of the 1990s. The reason for this intolerance is that the PPP, PML-N and PML-Q are being run as ‘dynasties’ or private limited companies. They neither hold genuine elections in their parties nor do they allow an ‘outsider’ to head the party even if he is more experienced and imaginative. Since the political elite is not inclined to establish democracy within their respective parties, it is unlikely that democratic traditions could flourish and new leadership could emerge. It has arrogated to itself the role of kings, and looks down upon capable bureaucrats and generals. It is true that according to the constitution, government servants and army personnel have to obey the orders of the government, but they are supposed to advise the president, prime minister and their ministers on important issues as they have many years’ experience in running the affairs of the state. In a democracy, the system of civil service had been tailored because, more often than not, uneducated, filthy-rich feudal or industrial robber barons reach the corridors of power. They neither have political acumen nor are familiar with statecraft.

Coming back to the role of the media one would like to observe that it has played an important role for freedom of expression and the independence of the judiciary. But recently a sizable section of media has been a source of confusion in the country. Barring a few honourable examples, most media persons cross all limits. These urban-centric anchorpersons and their ‘brilliant’ panelists remain preoccupied with proving each and every act of the government wrong. Media men are not supposed to be sentimental or become a party to partisan conflict because by doing so they lose their credibility. In fact, people have started showing their disdain for talk shows.

If one looks back to the 1970s and 1980s, the media had an undeclared code of ethics, and even self-projection of reporters was considered taboo. Of course, some right-thinking persons have started a debate over how a section of the media is resorting to media trial of leaders of a particular party. They, however, do not support any retaliation from the government side and suggest restraint. They believe that those involved in unethical practices and discrimination would stand exposed.

It must be mentioned that the PML-N leaders in the past had a damaged image. During their tenure they were in a confrontational mode with the then president, chief justice and chief of the army staff. But now they claim to be champions of the independence of the judiciary. PPP leaders argue that some political forces want to mire the present government in a messy showdown with the judiciary and the armed forces in order to pave their way to the corridors of power. Instead of believing in conspiracy theories and reacting reflexively, the PPP should try to mend fences with other organs of the state by showing mutual respect. And this will be their best revenge.

The writer is a freelance columnist. He can be reached at mjamil1938@hotmail.com

QUICK: name the chief justice of India. Can’t? How about Australia then? Brazil maybe? Canada, France or China? Russia, Malaysia or Turkey?

That CJ Iftikhar is a household name isn’t of course his fault. Credit for that goes to Musharraf, who clumsily tried to sack the judge who refused to do his bidding the second time round.

However, that CJ Iftikhar and the non-PCO-II judges continue to make almost daily headlines is absolutely their choice. But why? What exactly is the court trying to achieve?

Conventional wisdom has it that you need to look no further than who is getting battered the most — the federal government — and who has the most to lose — Asif Zardari — to figure out the court’s agenda.

That possibility makes the baying-for-blood populists and transformation-seekers very happy and the legal purists concerned about due process, separation of powers, etc very unhappy.

Yet, assume for a minute that CJ Iftikhar’s court has an institutional agenda that goes beyond the fate of Zardari and his cohorts.

It really isn’t so far-fetched.

Truth is, piece together the early evidence from the CJ Iftikhar’s orders and comments since his restoration and a picture begins to emerge that is not Zardari-specific.

So what, then, could the court really be after? Why is it opting to so firmly remain at the centre of political discourse and in the nation’s consciousness?

If you believe CJ Iftikhar’s court is trying to wipe out corruption entirely or make each and every holder of elected office accountable for his every action, then you believe in fairytales.

A judge with decades of legal experience in Pakistan knows the vastness of the state machinery and the endless opportunity for those inclined towards mischief. No court, perhaps even no higher power, could fix all that ails Pakistan in the time CJ Iftikhar has: three years until his retirement in December 2013.

Nor — despite attempting to set the price of sugar and petroleum products and pronouncing in March that ‘The people are distressed and the courts are compelled to do the work of the government organisations’ — is CJ Iftikhar probably attempting a takeover of the executive. Even in a Pakistan where the nightmarishly impossible has lately often become a reality, that possibility seems, at present, a bridge too far.

The answer, though, to what CJ Iftikhar’s judiciary is seeking to do may lie in a variant of the ‘encroachment theory’ doing the rounds in some legal circles. Separation of powers is a key element of constitutional democracies and some jurists have fretted that the court of CJ Iftikhar is encroaching on the rightful terrain of other institutions of the state, namely the executive and the legislature.

But while encroachment is probably on the mind of the superior judiciary, few have thought about the possibility that CJ Iftikhar’s judiciary is trying to reverse the historical encroachment on its — the court’s—territory.

Think about it. Everyone knows the damage done by the army to the executive and the legislature. Everyone knows that the politicians have eventually been able to drive the army from direct power. Everyone knows that the army has its guns and that the politicians have the bureaucracy when in power.

But if there is one institution that has consistently been pummelled and trampled underfoot by all sides, it is the judiciary. And alone among the institutional power players, constitutional and unconstitutional, if you count the army (as we must), the judiciary has no means to implement its orders.

Battered into submission and prevented from playing its full and proper role in the constitutional framework because of its dependence on a baulky executive for the implementation of its orders — that in essence is the superior judiciary that CJ Iftikhar inherited.

But Musharraf, and later Zardari, and the lawyers’ movement threw the judiciary a lifeline: unparalleled popular support. Armed with that formidable battering ram, CJ Iftikhar has seemingly embarked on a wrecking spree, delighting the enemies of Zardari and gratifying those sick of living with a broken system of governance. But the immediate targets are not necessarily the agenda.

If you imagine the judiciary as a bullied man constantly surrounded by his tormentors, the executive, the legislature and the army, what CJ Iftikhar may be doing is no more than finally fighting back. Shoving and pushing with the might of popular support fully behind it, the superior judiciary at last has a chance to mark out its territory and punish those who try to encroach on it.

Of course, this being Pakistan, the battle is being fought in a messy rather than surgical way.

The Supreme Court really should not be trying to fix the price of sugar or petrol, it should not be speculating about the possibility of using transgender individuals to recover bank loans that may or may not have been illegally written off, it should not appear to be compromising the principles of due process in the pursuit of the corrupt.

But neither, in fairness, has CJ Iftikhar’s court brought anything to a shuddering halt or unleashed total chaos. In fact, in the PCO judges case, the court gave parliament a grace period to figure out what it wanted to do with the ordinances Musharraf tried to protect with the November 2007 emergency — an olive branch so thoroughly lacking any constitutional basis that some believe the court has resurrected the doctrine of necessity in all but name.

So, if what CJ Iftikhar is really doing is fighting for his institution’s rightful space in the constitutional framework, the challenge for him going forward will be to calibrate his institution’s attacks — arguably, almost-too-late self-defence — such that they don’t cause the collapse of the government.

As Faisal Siddiqi, a fine legal mind who expounded this alternative theory of judicial activism in May, has written: ‘[The trend] is critically dependent on the continuation of the democratic process because there can be no independent judiciary without constitutionalism and there can be no constitutionalism without democracy.’

We needn’t automatically fear a court that may be trying to instill respect for its institution in other state institutions that have historically treated it with contempt. But we should fear a court that may be afflicted by the all-too-common Pakistani disease of not knowing when to stop, when to sense an irreversible crisis and back off for the sake of institutional stability.

2010 will surely go some way to giving us the answer. All we, the people, the outsiders, can do is perhaps invoke a prayer in keeping with the season: dona nobis pacem — grant us peace.

Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh’s official visit to the United States should have been the major story in Pakistan’s media. But our right-wing anchors and columnists and “get-Zardari” editors are far more focused on the domestic power struggles to realize that the nightmare of Pakistan’s strategic encirclement may already be on the brink of becoming reality.

The less attention Pakistanis pay to fighting terrorism and figuring out a way of dealing with the world, the more likely it is that India — the country with which Pakistan has fought four wars in 62 years — will continue to gain ground. India already has better relations with the governments of Afghanistan and Iran, our western neighbours. The more we demonstrate hatred towards the United States, the more we contribute to making the India-US relationship into an anti-Pakistan alliance, which need not be. We could complain and get angry with the US, as the Jamaatis and the Ghairat lobby advocate, or we could analyse the rising Indian influence and figure out ways of combating it.

It is interesting to note that in the ongoing Pakistani debate about US-Pakistan ties, India is seldom mentioned. Our jihad sympathizers relate their anti-Americanism to US actions against Muslims around the world, without realistically examining whether shouting slogans for our Arab brothers gains us any advantage in defending Pakistan against India. Pakistan has traditionally sought American help in order to stand up to India. If Pakistani anti-Americanism is not managed in a way that the Americans do not see Pakistanis as enemies, India’s strategic advantage will continue to increase.

The US would become a force-multiplier for India in our region instead of being a potential balancer that keeps India’s anti-Pakistan moves in check. We would be left holding anti-American demonstrations and publishing anti-American diatribes while India will be the beneficiary of US investment, defence deals and civil nuclear deal. Do we really want that to happen? Or is it already too late to stop the very strong ties, which have been built between India and the US? Let us take a look.

In the Bush administration 18 Indian-Americans served in various positions over the course of eight years compared with one Pakistani-American. In the Obama administration 22 Indian-Americans are already serving in senior positions (Assistant Secretary and above) and there is one Governor (out of fifty US states) of Indian descent. Almost 200 Indian-Americans serve as Congressional staffers compared with 12 Pakistani-American, three of whom work for the same Congresswoman. There are numerous State Department and Pentagon officials and at least one the US Ambassador of Indian origin.

More than 100,000 Indian students are enrolled in US universities compared with less than seven thousand Pakistanis. The number of professors of Indian origin in the US is at least one hundred times more than professors from Pakistan-totally disproportionate to the 1 to 7 population ratio.

The Indian Congressional caucus is three times as large as Pakistan’s and even the Chairwoman of the Pakistan caucus in the House of Representatives is simultaneously a member of the India caucus. There is hardly a US media organisation where Indian names are not prominent whereas Pakistani journalists only make their noisy presence felt in our own introverted media and that too only on domestic issues. Any Pakistani who manages to earn respect of the Americans is immediately denigrated as an American agent in Pakistan. The Indians, on the other hand, see their countrymen as spreading Indian influence in America.

Ironically, India was historically never an American ally and did not have the same level of aid (especially military assistance) from the United States, as did Pakistan. So how did India transform itself into a close partner after the cold war and Pakistan manage to become the unhappy semi-ally? The question is relevant today because of what we Pakistanis have become and what we have achieved over the years. Pakistan is America’s oldest ally in the region but Pakistan and the US are more estranged today than they were at any time in history. India was a Soviet ally till 1989 and yet India and the US have strong economic and strategic ties.

The Indians appear to have realised early on that even if they did not have security ties with the US building close ties at other levels was important for the long-term. Pakistan did the reverse. While we were recipients of large amounts of military aid, we did little to build a presence in US academia or media. Our community remains focused on getting attention in Pakistan and few Pakistani-Americans have earned the stature in mainstream American intellectual or political life that could translate into serious influence. Over time, US-based Indian organizations have helped build close cultural and educational ties between the two countries. Bollywood is now penetrating Hollywood while there is little comparable Pakistani ingress.

The India-US nuclear deal is considered a defining moment for the India-US relationship. Let us look at the reactions in India over the Indo-US nuclear deal. The Congress-led government was in favour of the nuclear deal but the Communist parties who were allied to the Congress government at that time did not ideologically support the deal. There was debate and discussion in the Parliament and in the Indian electronic and print media for nine months. In the end when the left parties and BJP decided to vote against the bill, the Congress obtained the support of other smaller parties.

The government secured 275 votes in the 541 member Lok Sabha for the India-US civil nuclear deal and their opponents secured 256 votes. The left parties targeted the government for changing the traditional policy of non-alignment and becoming too close to the United States but it was through discussion and debate, not street demonstrations, rubbishing America in the media or calling influential Indian-Americans as CIA agents.

Also, the political leaders faced fire, not the Indian ambassador in Washington and other officials who were following orders and doing their job. Also during the entire controversy the Indian military did not openly involve itself or say anything about the deal. And throughout the entire period the Indian-American community was very strongly behind the bill, they lobbied hard in the US for the passage of the bill and they lobbied hard back home for the passage of the bill in Parliament.

On the other side let us look at the Kerry-Lugar Bill controversy and the way it played out both in Pakistan and amongst the Pakistani-American community abroad. The strong anti-Americanism in Pakistan led the initially pro-Kerry-Lugar Pakistani American community to become silent. The debate in the Pakistani media was less a debate on Pakistani policy options and more a hate campaign against the US. Politicians attacked their own government; the army spoke out publicly against the Kerry-Lugar-Berman Bill’s contents; and once it became clear that the US Congress would not change its views, the whole thing subsided like foam at home even though offense had unnecessarily been caused to American Congressmen.

Why is it that despite 54 years of close ties with the US Pakistan has not been able to help build a relationship of influence in the US? Our problem is that unfortunately we don’t know how to influence others – we only know how to abuse them. The Quaid dreamt of Pakistan being a global power with influence all over the world. How does one build Pakistan’s global influence?

Pakistan’s ability to change minds of global powers will be a source of Pakistani influence; Not jihadis who will keep getting arrested and keep Pakistan under watchful eye of major powers. And yet over the decades every Pakistani who has tried to build close ties with the US, like Sahibzada Yaqub Khan, Najmuddin Sheikh, Jehangir Karamat, Mahmud Ali Durrani and Husain Haqqani, has been labeled as an American agent rather than being seen as Pakistanis who can better communicate with Americans in Pakistan’s interest.

If India is about to win huge contracts and get heaped with praise during the Manmohan Singh visit to Washington, Pakistanis need to review how we have played our cards wrong for decades. And then, let us work on a plan to change the relationship if for no other reason than to deny our adversary the advantage of being the world’s sole superpower’s sole South Asian partner.

Sadiq Saleem is a businessman and analyst based in Toronto, Canada. E-mail: sadiqsaleemca@gmail.com

Transparency International’s new Annual Corruption Perceptions Report and Pakistan’s position on its index is once again the topic of discussion on all TV channels and most newspaper columns, courtesy right wing anchors and columnists. Instead of focusing on the terrorist threat to the Pakistani way of life, the corruption issue is once again being used to create hatred for the political class and to dislodge or weaken an elected government.

One can sense a replay of the past, as those who know Pakistan’s history of the 1990s would testify. In Pakistan between 1988 and 1999 no elected civilian government was allowed to complete its term because of alleged corruption. The 1999 military coup that brought General Pervez Musharraf to power was also justified on grounds that Pakistan’s generals were better suited to wage the war against corruption.

Transparency’s reports are highlighted only under civilian governments though Pakistan’s rating for corruption changes little on an annual basis and the global perception that Pakistan is rife with corruption is consistent under civil or military rule. Few commentators educate the public on how Transparency International, a small NGO with local affiliates who are not past political prejudice, draws up its index. The average man is led to believe that Transparency International is some kind of a United Nations, which it is not, and its reports are based on measuring corruption, which they are not either. The truth is that Transparency International is a Berlin-based organization that publishes an annual Corruption Perceptions Index based on surveys “from 13 independent institutions” based on “the opinions of business people and country analysts.” So all that Transparency’s reports tell us is what some businessmen perceive and tell the organisation’s surveyors.

The media can first create a perception of corruption, which is reflected in Transparency’s survey and then report on the survey selectively to argue that corruption has gone up or down in the country. What a manipulative process!

Corruption has often been described as the cause for most of the problems of third world countries. During the better part of the 1990s when democracies were being introduced in most of these countries in a post cold war era, corruption was used by the entrenched establishment in several countries to undermine the democratic processes. By the early 21st century however another serious debate emerged in the West when intellectuals started to question the wisdom of taking corruption as the single most important factor in the social, economic and democratic development of a society.

This thread of thought emerged as the researchers and academics realized that the so-called war on corruption, sometime pushed by the World Bank, had started to undermine democracy and often resulted into projecting choices for the people that did not lead to real development.

One such thinker Moises Naim, former Venezuelan Trade Minister and currently Editor of Foreign Policy magazine, wrote in a classic 2005 article that the “worst collateral damage” of a fixation with corruption, “is the political instability it can create. Electorates already have many reasons to be disappointed with their elected officials. The corruption curse feeds people’s unrealistic expectations about what it would take to improve their standard of living and set a country on a more prosperous path. Popular impatience, exacerbated by the belief that nearly all those at the top are lining their pockets, unreasonably shortens the time governments have to produce results.”

Naim also pointed out, “There is no doubt that corruption is a scourge. But there is also no doubt that many countries crippled by corruption are not sinking. Hungary, Italy and Poland are just a few examples of countries where prosperity has coexisted with significant levels of corruption. China, India and Thailand are only not sinking; they are prospering, despite widespread corruption.”

Of course, Naim’s purpose was not to condone corruption. He sought only to point out that the elites and intelligentsias of some countries can ignore more fundamental problems while obsessing about corruption.

In our case, the corruption debate has prevented Pakistanis from identifying terrorism as a threat. Bombs go off and we ignore them but columnists and anchors who consider the Taliban lashing a young woman in Swat as “consistent with Sharia” rant on about fiscal corruption as disastrous.

During the mid-1990s Pakistanis felt dishonored by the revelation that Transparency International had listed Pakistan as the second most corrupt country in the world. Apologists for Pakistan’s establishment used that factoid to run down Pakistan’s politicians and blamed them for bringing Pakistan to this point. Once the establishment had run the politicians down and used corruption as an excuse for increasing its power in a succession of palace coups, discussion over Pakistan’s rating for corruption by Transparency International seldom made news. In most of the Musharraf era, the media rarely gave any importance to the TI index, although Pakistan never performed very well on that benchmark.

Going back to the argument of Moises Naim that corruption does not necessarily mean that the country’s economy is sinking, one may notice that in the year 2004 Transparency International index, Finland was identified as the world’s least corrupt country and the most corrupt countries were Bangladesh and Haiti. Now if we look at Bangladesh’s economic growth in the first few years of the 21st century it is apparent that she has managed to maintain stable growth while Pakistan that had better rating in TI index during these periods had not been able to create a sustainable economic platform.

According to TI, “The index defines corruption as the abuse of public office for private gain, and measures the degree to which corruption is perceived to exist among a country’s public officials and politicians.” The scores on TI’s index range from 10 (squeaky clean) to zero (highly corrupt). TI considers a score of 5.0 as “the borderline figure distinguishing countries that do and do not have a serious corruption problem.”

The methodology for determining the level of corruption in a country is such that the ranking is less important than the rating. A country can be the worst in a certain year, when fewer nations are surveyed, but move up or down in the rankings because of changes in the number of countries surveyed. Pakistan’s rating, on the other hand, has improved little over the years.

It has been pointed out that in Pakistan’s case, corruption is a constant factor, which is exaggerated or downplayed according to the political needs of the country’s bureaucracy and generals. In Pakistan this rating is often used as an excuse to boot out or denigrate the politicians while covering up the corruption and other ethical lapses of other important players of power.

There is no doubt that the honest Pakistanis must carry on their struggle against corruption but anti-corruption crusades must not be allowed to deprive the country of democratic governance and popular participation in government.

During the NRO debate in the country recently many facts were completely ignored by most of the media. While the 1990s were wasted in filing and pursuing corruption cases, no one came up with statistics about how many cases were actually proved in the courts of law? How many cases did not even reach the stage of prosecution and what about those in which the victims (accused) were found not guilty? And why should it not be debated that those who filed false cases on the basis of patently political considerations must be brought to book?

Exploring these angles requires thinking that is not contoured and driven by an agenda. The Transparency International index and allegations of corruption, however, can help some people play their games.

Sadiq Saleem is a businessman and analyst based in Toronto, Canada. Email:sadiqsaleemca@gmail.com

In repeated opinion poll surveys in Pakistan over the last one year, there has been one thing constant – the rising anti-Americanism in the country. According to the Pew Research Centre, only 16 per cent of Pakistanis surveyed have a favourable view of the United States and 13 per cent have confidence in President Barack Obama.

Though there are many reasons for this anti-Americanism, what we cannot deny is that it has a great deal with how the discourse has been shaped by the views and agendas of our political leaders, media personalities, journalists, academics and security establishment.

Pakistanis as a nation are riled up en masse over the supposed ‘loss of sovereignty’ over the fact that our ally of 55 years decided to give us unconditional economic aid – in addition to conditional military aid – for a change. At $1.5 billion per year the Enhanced Partnership for Pakistan Act 2009 would make Pakistan the single largest recipient of US government development aid in the world – greater than the Israel economic aid package. And while to many media commentators and so-called analysts $1.5 billion in aid does not seem like a large amount as it is 1 per cent of Pakistan’s GDP and for the government would be 10 per cent of its revenue. It would enable the government to increase spending on education and health by 33 per cent (I am grateful for this information to a California-based Pakistani, Mr Nayyer Ali).

Our very ‘honourable’ political leaders and media personalities lecture and harp on a daily basis how this bill is ‘anti-Pakistan’, failing to point out that this is one among the very few pro-Pakistan American legislations as it would help the people of Pakistan! But then for these ‘honourable’ personalities Pakistan means them – and not the people.

Pakistan’s Ghairat lobby responds to those who disagree by labelling them ‘bay-ghairat’, ‘traitor’, ‘American agent’, ‘kafir’, and a dozen more such epithets. It is interesting how supporting good relations with the US makes one an American agent but advocating a break in these relations does not result in any label whatsoever.

Secretary Clinton’s trip to Pakistan too was portrayed in a very particular way – to highlight this ‘anti-Americanism’ and Pakistani ‘anger’. More focus – and more camera time – was given to anti-American speeches, to students ranting and raving on ‘US policy’ and to how ‘this war’ was not Pakistan’s war. Very little attention was paid to the fact that the leading foreign diplomat of the still only superpower in the world spent three days in Pakistan, emphasised how deep the US-Pakistan relationship is and promised even more economic aid for the Pakistani people.

Again the only time attention was paid to Secretary Clinton’s speech was when she expressed ‘surprise’ at how ‘no one’ in the Pakistani establishment had any knowledge about al-Qaeda and other jihadis, elements at one time sponsored by elements of our state. Here too the focus was on how to show this as ‘American perfidy’ rather than what it really was – frank talk between two friends, especially in the light of Secretary Clinton’s earlier admission and apology about American conduct during and after the anti-Soviet Afghan jihad of the 1980s. Maybe our culture believes in hypocrisy and so we think if we refuse to admit something the world will stop asking those questions. But that doesn’t happen. The world will keep asking and keep stating things and if we don’t give answers they will find ways to find those answers themselves.

We also tend to see events as stand alone things that we can ignore because they will have no impact on long-term policy. That is where we are wrong. Events play in to process and process decides policy. Just as it is wrong to mistake the wood for the trees, similarly it is stupid to do the opposite. From 2008 onwards the Americans have tried to build a relationship with Pakistan that goes beyond the traditional security-based relationship and is more multi-dimensional in nature. However, this is their last and final attempt to try to ‘help Pakistan’ reverse what they perceive as a precarious course.

It is interesting that what Hilary Clinton said during her three-day visit to Pakistan in 2009 is not very different from what President Bill Clinton said when he stopped for only five hours in March 2000. Quite clearly the Americans have been as consistent in their view of Pakistan as Pakistanis have been of the Americans. If we are on collision course should we just increase the pitch of our screaming or actually think about how we can avoid that collision?

For decades we were America’s only ally in the region and we believed that ‘the Americans need us more than we need them’ and since they have no other ally in the region they have ‘no option’ but to stand by us through thick and thin. Even that theory was constantly disproved – in 1965, 1971 and 1989. Now, those days are gone. The US-India relationship, which was mainly economic in the 1990s, has now taken on a strong security and defence dimension. India plans on spending $100 billion to modernise and replace its old Soviet equipment and the Americans are there at the top of the line as suppliers. American companies will build two nuclear power reactors in India.

For the last five years on an annual basis the American and Indian armies have held war games called Yudh Abyas (War Exercise). This year’s exercise included 17 American Strykers – the largest deployment outside of Iraq and Afghanistan for the US Pacific Rim forces. Not only the army, but also the navies and air forces of both countries hold joint exercises on an annual basis. This year the Japanese naval forces joined the joint India-US exercise. Even China and India hold military exercises once every two years.

The US has always been open to the idea of help and assistance of regional powers in Afghanistan and Admiral Mullen has openly talked about Indian military assistance. This has never happened because of American reluctance to upset Pakistan. However, if our anti-Americanism continues the day might come when the Americans do not see the value of their Pakistani relationship. I, and anyone else who points this out, is not an American agent but a voice of sanity in an environment of anger and hate.

In a recent article in the influential Foreign Policy magazine titled ‘US-India military cooperation’ Robert Haddick argues that the rapid expansion in the defence relationship between the United States and India contrasts sharply with the troubled security relationships the US has with China and Pakistan. At the end of his article Haddick warns with little seeming to go right with Afghanistan, Pakistan, or China, US policymakers should be pleased with warming US-India defence ties. When pondering Afghanistan, Pakistan, and China, the US-India defence relationship is something both countries will take comfort in – and may someday need.

Many of you who read this piece will shrug your heads and say ‘so what’ and that is what I fear. This complacency about our relationship with the US is going to hurt Pakistan long-term. We are not Vietnam, Iran or China. Vietnam fought a nationalist insurgency, which so thoroughly consumed the country that it took them years just to reach to the level of a developing country. Iran has oil and ancient roots. And China has a 1.2 billion population, the largest military in the world, soon to be the largest economy and a very strong identity. Even then, each one of them is willing to engage with the US cautiously instead of basing their relationship on rhetoric. None of them is as dependent on US aid as Pakistan. It is time that we wake up as a nation, look around and see the reality of the world rather than living in a constructed reality.

 (Sadiq Saleem is a businessman and part-time analyst based in Toronto, Canada.

 Email:sadiqsaleemca@gmail.com)

On Monday, November 2, thirty-five innocent Pakistanis lost their lives to a terrorist attack. These were ordinary people, standing in line at a bank to receive their monthly salary. They must have gone there with plans of spending that money on their parents, wives, children, brothers and sisters. But for the Pakistani media, especially the TV anchors who have now become the arbiters of what is important and what is not, the death of these poor people was not important. With their usual cast of characters from —Jamaat-e-Islami to Imran Khan to the two Muslim Leagues— the electronic media that day was exclusively focused on the so-called NRO issue.

Although the PPP has defused the matter by withdrawing the ordinance from Parliament, there is something artificial about the manner in which the matter of the NRO was made the primary focus of national discussion. The NRO issue took over from debate over the Kerry Lugar Bill, which also died its natural death. Those in the media who considered the Kerry-Lugar Bill a matter of national sovereignty have not even asked the PML-N or PML-Q to bring their own resolutions in the National Assembly on the matter.

Now that Hillary Clinton has spoken, the two Muslims Leagues would not dare condemn the US through a resolution in Parliament. The purpose of the fuss over the bill, like the NRO non-debate, was to undermine the Zardari presidency. The Pakistani military is fighting the battle for the country’s survival in Waziristan.

For years at least some of our anchors have claimed that the Mehsud militants are backed by foreign enemies of Pakistan. But neither the war in Waziristan nor the terrorist attacks in Rawalpindi have received the kind of attention that befits them. For the overzealous TV anchors, the real issue is how to embarrass President Zardari. Some of them claim they have the establishments backing in doing so.

Those striving for a Constitutional knockout of President Zardari need to reconsider whether they will accomplish anything even if they succeed. The first consequence of such a knockout would be to give the PPP and the Bhutto-Zardari family the mantle of victimhood once again. After the initial grumbling is over, the People’s Party will most likely rally round the family that has given the greatest sacrifices for it. Even if Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani becomes part of the knockout plan, which is highly unlikely, he would be reduced to the same position as Farooq Leghari was within months of his action against Benazir Bhutto in 1996.

If the fingerprints of the establishment are found in President Zardari’s decapitation, as the anti-Zardari anchors and columnists claim, it would revive in all likelihood the anti-establishment polarization that the military sought to end by withdrawing from politics after the eclipse of General Pervez Musharraf. In any case, why should the establishment become part of an anti-Zardari game plan if all it would do is bring Mr Nawaz Sharif to power?

The issue of civil-military relations will certainly not be resolved to the establishments satisfaction because if Mr. Nawaz Sharif rises to power with the weakening of a Zardari-led PPP then he is unlikely to be more deferential to GHQ.

Since the unfortunate era of General Ziaul Haq the Pakistani establishment has had a pro-Jihad faction that operates politically through the media and various political actors. These people did not respect General Asif Nawaz, General Abdul Waheed, or General Jehangir Karamat. General Pervez Musharraf pleased them by championing adventurism in Kargil but lost their backing in the post-9/11 context. Now, too, it is not General Ashfaq Kayani who wants an army (or establishment) role in politics. It is the beneficiaries of Jihad Inc., including the many media figures beholden to the Jihadis, who want to shoot at a liberal government using the establishments shoulder.

If Pakistan will gain nothing from upsetting the applecart, why are some people so insistent on continuing to distract the nation from fighting terrorism and from sympathizing with terrorist victims? Why not allow the Parliament to decide matters even if it is with a single vote? Why don’t the TV anchors ask Imran Khan how he can judge the government’s actions and claim to speak for the people without being elected? Why is every initiative of PML-N a media initiative and never brought to the elected chambers? Is it not the purpose of democracy to find a way to get past issues instead of getting bogged down by them?

The media, especially its electronic manifestation, seems like a bunch of quacks (fake doctors) that keep generating campaign after campaign against someone they dislike (President Zardari). It is time the people fight back and say let there be some sanity in the country. Let priorities be priorities.

Like the title of the Hindi movie Lagay Raho Munna Bhai, we need to learn to ignore the TV anchors and say Lagay Raho media Bhai and pay attention to the lives of people instead of the artificial politics of talk shows. If the talk show crowd has evidence of corruption, let them take it to the independent judiciary, which they claim they got restored. If there is an issue that requires Parliamentary attention, let Parliament vote on it. It is time for real action, not media campaigns.

For twenty-four hours after a tragedy like the Rawalpindi terrorist attack, the nation should be allowed to grieve and sympathize with the victims. The media and the establishment some anchors so frequently quote should give the people a break.

 Sadiq Saleem is a businessman and part-time analyst based in Toronto, Canada. sadiqsaleemca@gmail.com