State of Corruption in South Asia 2000-01

Dear Shah Sahib

I hope you are aware that Fisk, one of the very few sane voice in the mainstream Western media, has quoted you. In fact, his analysis is based closely on your views in the TFT piece. I am glad to see that there are others like you who put emphasis on democratisation as the highest priority. Keep it up, do let me know via this forum about your next article/writing

Farewell to democracy in Pakistan

Robert Fisk

The Independent

26 October 2001

Armoured warfare schools, signals headquarters, artillery ranges, military museums, cavalry lines, infantry battalion compounds... every few hundred yards in every city, you come across them. Driving around Pakistan is like touring a barracks.

Cross the Indus river at Attock and the thump of shellfire changes the air pressure as General Pervez Musharraf’s tanks move down the range. Along the roadsides are artillery pieces dating back to the Raj, 45-pounders and French armour and old Sherman tanks on concrete plinths to remind Pakistanis of their heroic martial past.

Their national defence journal carries stirring tales by former chiefs of staff and extracts from the 1962 war diaries of the East Pakistan Rifles. And this is supposed to be a nation threatened with Islamic revolution?

It’s an odd phenomenon, but there are times when the West seems to be more worried about the “Islamisation” of Pakistan than Pakistanis are themselves. For has a military dictatorship ever been more blessed than that of General Musharraf? General Zia-ul-Haq was held in contempt by the West when he hanged prime minister Bhutto – but he was elevated to ally and friend the moment that we needed his help in the anti-Soviet war in Afghanistan. However, by 1993 Pakistan was almost declared a “state sponsor of terrorism” by the United States because of its support for Kashmiri Muslim guerrillas.

When President Clinton arrived in the subcontinent last year, he paid a state visit to India but gave General Musharraf – who had still to declare himself president – only a few hours, favouring Pakistan with a one-day return trip, a lecture on the evils of Osama bin Laden and an appeal to General Musharraf not to hang the prime minister, Nawaz Sharif.

Nor can General Musharraf have been too pleased with Colin Powell’s ode to liberty last January. “There should be no question in any world leader’s mind that the most essential ingredient for success in this 21st century is a free people and a government that derives its right to govern from the consent of such people,” the US Secretary of State announced: “...America stands ready to help any country that wishes to join the democratic world.”

Then came 11 September and General Powell produced a new song sheet. “President Bush,” he told us on 16 October, “asked me... to demonstrate our enduring commitment to our relationship with Pakistan... we are also looking forward to strengthening our co-operation on a full range of bilateral and regional issues... we’re truly at the beginning of a strengthened relationship, a relationship that will grow and thrive in the months and years ahead.” All of which just goes to show what the loan of a few air bases and the arrest of a few government-sponsored Islamists can do. General Musharraf had taken “bold and courageous action” against “international terrorism”.

And in the blinking of an eye, there was General Powell promising to take up the Kashmir dispute with India – the very nation that almost persuaded America’s State Department to put Pakistan on its “terrorism” list in 1992. Newsweek outlined the US government’s view with alarming, if unconscious, frankness. “It may be a good thing that Pakistan is ruled by a friendly military dictator,” the magazine concluded, “rather than what could well be a hostile democracy.”

This, of course, is the very policy that dictates Washington’s relations with the Arab world. Far better to have a Mubarak or a King Abdullah or a King Fahd running the show than to let the Arabs vote for a real government that might oppose US policies in the region.

Corrupt, lawless, drug-ridden, and inherently unstable Pakistan may be, but General Musharraf allows a kind of freedom of speech to continue. Anyone used to the arid wastes of Arab journalism can only be surprised by the debate in the Pakistani press, the often violent anti-Musharraf views expressed in the letters pages and the columnists who argue forcefully for a return to democracy. If General Musharraf has to allow Islamists their freedom to “let off steam” – as Pakistanis like to say – then he has to give equal space to the democrats.

Aqil Shah put it very well when he wrote in Lahore’s Friday Times last week that, by allying himself with America’s “War on Terror”, General Musharraf had secured de facto international acceptance for his 1999 coup. Suddenly, all he had wished for – the lifting of sanctions, massive funding for Pakistan’s crumbling industry, IMF loans, a $375m (£263m) debt rescheduling and humanitarian aid – has been given him.

While General Powell mutters a few words about political freedom – and none at all about Pakistan’s nuclear tests – we hear no more of General Musharraf’s widely publicised “roadmap” to democracy.

The problem, as Mr Shah points out, is that future peace and stability requires sustained investment in solid secular democracies – not in stable dictatorships. Yet the United States is now laying the foundations of a long-term autocracy in Pakistan, a dictatorship not unlike those that lie like a cancer across the Middle East.

The United States likes to call this a “strategic engagement” and is already, in its embassy’s private press briefings, reminding journalists of the corruption that smeared the democratically elected Sharif government. Far better, surely, to have an honest, down-to-earth, clean military man in charge.

Of course, we must forget that it was Pakistan’s Interservices Intelligence (ISI) outfits – the highest ranks of the country’s security agencies – that set up the Taliban, funnelled weapons into Afghanistan and grew rich on the narcotics trade. Ever since the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in 1979, the ISI has worked alongside the CIA, funding the mullahs and maulawis now condemned as the architects of “world terror”.

Most Pakistanis now realise that the ISI – sanctioned by Washington rather than Pakistan’s own rulers – turned into a well-armed and dangerous mafia, and while money was poured into its smuggling activities, Pakistan’s people lacked education, security and a health service. No wonder they turned to Islam and the madrassa schools for food and teaching.

But will anything really change? Pakistan’s military is now more important than ever, an iron hand to maintain order within the state while its superpower ally bombs the ruins of Afghanistan. Driving past all those compounds and cavalry lines and barrack squares in Pakistan, one can only be shocked by the profound social division they represent.

Outside in the street, Afghan refugees and Pakistan’s urban poor root through garbage tips and crowd on to soot-pumping buses to work in sweatshops and brick factories. Inside, behind the ancient, newly painted cannons and battalion flags, rose bushes surround well-tended lawns and officers’ messes decorated with polished brass fittings.

No rubbish litters this perfect world of discipline. Why should anyone living here want a return to corrupt democracy? Especially when America is their friend.

Sameer

The article will be published in January in a US-based journal. I`ll send a copy to your account when I complete it.

The piece that just appeared on Chowk echoes some of my post-Sept 11 concerns. This article was supposed to be published in the News, but as insiders told me later, they backed off under the ISPR`s advice that anything anti-govt/US will have to wait till after Powell left Islamabad. Initially, the News had agreed to carry the piece on the day Powell was supposed to arrive. Anyway, TFT came to my rescue though it was delayed.

Thanks Aqil for another very response. I admire your logical understanding of Pakistani state and society at this critical junction of time and history. We can not afford to keep moving away from the norms of decent state and decent society by adamant stand on marginal issues like corruption, Kashmir and religion. All these issues play key role in the hands of institutions with vested interests in keeping their hold on political power and annual budgets. The returns on the hard earned money for a poor nation are destruction of national political institutions, Kargill and Taliban. Even with the critical situation at hand, the military junta allowed demonstrations and processions by largely Afghan refugees in Pakistan while banning Pakistani political parties from holding rallies.

The fact is that they have failed Pakistan on every occasion. They failed Pakistan by creating and imposing Taliban on Afghanistan and now, as I write, they are failing to keep anti-Pakistani Northern Alliance to move onto Kabul and Mazar-e-Sharif and claim the major share in the future of post-Taliban Afghanistan. With every passing day, the position of Pakistan in Afghanistan internal affairs is marginilizing, interestingly with the unstinted backing by Mush and his junta. Not that I am disapproving of Pakistani backing of USA but merely suggesting it to be under duress than any intelligent vision of this expert in gorilla warfare. It appears that with each passing day, the chances of Pakistani position of including moderate Taliban in the future of Afghannistan is losing steam. Any attempt to double cross USA at this moment could be even more disastrous with Mush being the first casualty.

Military has been wrong in spending the lion share of national budget. They have been wrong in making Kashmir the main issue between India and Pakistan to the extent of jeopardizing the future of 140 million Pakistanis. They were wrong in supporting radical Islamic fundamentalist in Afghan war against Russia. They were wrong in creating Taliban when Pakistan had free hand to pick and choose in Afghanistan. They were dead wrong in overthrowing the civilian government for using their lawful right to dismiss or appoint COAS whenever they wanted. They were wrong in backing fundamentalists, jehadis and sectarian groups in Pakistan. All this for 30 percent or more of annual national budget? What a bargain?

Would you please, publish your academic article that you mentioned in post #38, here at chowk, or privately at jbsameer@yahoo.com

Zahra,

Thank you for your kind words on my supposed ‘erudition’.

I never implied that individuals were insignificant to public policy, leadership and political processes. But individuals alone do not create institutions, institutions are born out the of the collective/action will of various forces (legal, political, business). Societies driven by competing interests, values and loyalties require institutions (representative and others) so that collective interests are articulated and conflicts mediated.

Yes, individuals are important, but relying on them for the continiuty of governance systems is where we run into snags. While a “barbarian, silly retard” (highly charged, judgemental terms I would say) may enter the political arena/state institutions, systems/instiutions of governance can rinse the polity through regulatory/accountability mechanisms. The example of the erratic Laloo Prasad Yadav in Bihar, who capitalised on the caste card, is a prime one. His corruption and political antics notwithstanding, he is still active in politics But he has also lost elections and was indicted several times on corruption charges. Indian instiutions are not perfect years of continuity/democracy, have stablized them, they can haul up a former PM/CM before the law.

Your question: What if you may have a very strong institution and the followers are not willing to comply by those norms set by that institution? What will you do then?

People working in functioning institutions (bureaucracy, judiciary) are bound by its rules. In a sense, coopted by its dictates. If they digress, institional mechanism can come into play. That is the crux of the individual/institution paradox. Your good professor is not replacable, but if the institution is strong, functions, delivers…it will attract more talented professors. If you look at the graveyard that our higher education has become, you will see many beacons of hope. I have when I was a student but there potential, talent does not translate into meaningful societal change because they are institutionalised by the logic of a repressive education system. Role models are necessary but no sufficient to sustain a society’s intellectual, political and moral moorings.

On your concern about civil-military dialogue:

Let me cite a personal example to extrapolate the prospects of what you propose. I was teaching a course on the Political Economy of National Security at a University in Islamabad. Not unexpectedly, the core textbook on the subject was only available in the National Defence College (by the way, the NDC budget is three times bigger than the combined state allocations for research to all public sector universities in Pakistan). The army colonel incharge refused point blank to lend it to me even for photocopying since it was meant for military personnel only. More important was his caustic remark though “how could a civilian teach defence? My response to him: if you can run Wapda and Punjab university, civilians can bloody well teach defense economics. Leaving that verbal exchange based on his sheer ignorance apart, his comments summed up the military’s approach to the “civilian problem. The point I am making: dialogue takes place between equals. The military has usurped all poles of power in our society be it education, science (a contact in the Ministry of Finance narrated to me the sordid tale of how almost 65% of the annual science and technology budget was allocated, under orders from the GHQ, to one institution run by the military, the rest of Pakistan had to do with the remaining 35%) private sector (road building, transport, logistics). You name it, they run it. And run it tax free.

The military holds civilian authority in contempt. To the military mind, the civilian is inept, corrupt, inefficient, lazy and unpatriotic. And who can initiate a dialogue with the military when politics is banned? Parliament stands dissolved. If an academic challenges the state’s “hostility consensus” he is branded a Hindu, Jewish agent. I know a few and the mental torture they are subjected to. When I was teaching, I was personally harassed by minions of the military on several occasions. Dialogue with the military will be a dialogue of the deaf. Dialogue is possible when the other side is willing to hear you out, give you the benefit of the doubt. Not when they think, you are a “bloody civilian”.

Nationalistic jingoism and discipline expressed in such glorified titles “unity, faith, discipline’ provide the fuel for the establishment to crush dissent. Where should I start: Pashtuns, Baluchis, Bengalis were all brutalised, robbed of their basic right to disagree, in the name of unity, faith and discipline.

Ek: I do not hold any illusions of radical changes in Pakistan politics at this point. The military will continue to ruin every state institution it can, emasculate it, dominate it to the extent that it can not ever present any challenge. This has been our history, our present and I am afraid to say, our foreseeable future. I am not advocating a change of government at this critical hour. My concern is that America’s flirtation with Pakistani dictators has only worsened the distortions, contradictions that mar state and society in Pakistan. Pakistan’s liberal pseudo intellectuals are once again beating the drums reminiscent of the 1980s, more arms for the navy, army and airforce. My concern is that more dollars, more arms from the “civilized, democratic west” will strengthen the military at the expense of all other pillars of society. Ek, I still think giving the military the benefit of the doubt is a luxury we can ill-afford. They will not go back to the barracks, not when America is their friend.

I understand your concern about the present. What can we do? We can write, protest, mobilize public opinion, lobby the media/academia in the US elsewhere, be more vocal about our political future, and wrest the initiative, no matter how long it takes, from the religious right and the equally conservative military. It is surely a long process but we can take the first steps in that direction.

Dear Zahra and Ek:

Will respond to your queries/concerns tomorrow as I am racing against time to meet a deadline on the outline/themes of an academic piece. It`s on the post-September 11 prospects of political stability/return to civilian rule in Pakistan.

EK, I will be discussing the mad mullah ploys of the establishment in it though I am not aware of any systematic work on the subject.

Dear Mr. Shah:

Your institution vs individuals theme reminded me of something, I used to very strongly believe in, while I was in college and university in Pakistan. I used to always analyze what you talked about from the perspective of academic institutions, mostly observing my professors. My questions were not questions requiring an answer. I was speaking my mind aloud to conduct some brainstorming. Thanks to Sadna, for shedding some light, anyway.

To me, individuals matter! In fact, they matter a lot! In civilized societies, institutions should hold precedance over individuals. OK! Why? Probably, because decades back some individuals created a strong institution. But still the role of individuals should not be taken for granted as they have got to be mentally prepared for, what they are going to be involved in, by entering an institution.

Do you think a barbarian, a characterless lunatic, or a silly retard can enter an institution in Pakistan and realize the standing of that institution? You need abiding individuals to follow the rules and laws set by an institution. Once that person retires or dies, he should be remembered for his stance during his/her days in power. What if you may have a very strong institution and the followers are not willing to comply by those norms set by that institution? What will you do then?

I am reminded of one of my professors who used to teach us various subjects and would assist us in lab-practicals during the undergrad years at UET. A few years back, he passed away. He was an individual in that institution, but he`s not completely replaceable. The person, brought with him many things, aside from his knoweldge: experience, approach and many other attributes. I may sound a little biased as I knew him personally and liked him very much. Still, he`s not 100% replaceable.

Institutions by themselves, are nothing! They need individuals to set examples, in following the norms, set by the institutions. Another example will be of, religion. It is an institution and requires practitioners to disseminate the teachings of that institution and follow themselves. Can this institution stand on its own? On the other hand, if i cross-examine my own example: If all the practitioners die or vanish from mother earth, would the institution still survive? Yes, it will! What was the role of the practitioners/followers? They were conveying the message of this institution by following the instructions for their own good as well as for others. In short, they served as role models.

I am not surprised to read your take on my point on ``strategic direction.`` I knew that`s what you will come up with. I also agree with you regarding the prolonged void. I do not want to indulge in a discussion for the sake of it. But I have to give you the credit for producing excellent arguments that weren`t ``brand new`` in terms of their premise, but they were very well put and well-analyzed. Personally, I cannot stand any Pakistanis` stance on these political matters on Chowk. Majority is driven by emotions and holds certain views based on their distorted assumptions and generalizations. Sorry, but that`s the truth, if you read their mindset carefully. I liked yours for various reasons; aside from educational, your arguments were very well penned. Thank you for nazil-ho-fying on Chowk :) Please do write more! Thanks for jumping into the interacting zone as well!

I would like to ask you something here[My question is only for you. I am not keen on learning any one else`s take.]: Do you think it makes sense to have an open forum of discussion between the armed forces and the civilians? Do you think that would spark something? Our armed forces cannot stay outside. If you want to bring in the examples of the past, then there is a trend there. I think the open discussion would reveal many things and will also bring people on one platform. We can read and write many studies but that`s not it. You cannot keep on telling any institution how good or bad it is. You need to suggest or advise them how to improve or be on the road to eldorado. Could you write something on that? Personally, I like army for discipline. I saw Musharraf the second time on TV since he took over. His oratory skills were not vey impressive, but his stand and his arguments were. In short, he made sense! In the past, we have had many corrupt as well as incompetetnt leaders in lime-light. Yes, you cannot have saints in power, but incompetence is unacceptable! I do not want to hear an argument that many other democratic governments have corrupt people in power, including the US. Just wearing a black suit does not make their actions legitimate. But none of them take pride in ``unity, faith and discipline.`` We do. We have been doing that. We have a lot of emphasis on that. Probably we should wipe these words off the State Bank`s Building and that would set the qibla in the right direction.

How`s that?

Finally from the slumber of superstition & tradition will arise movements like Naxalbari ,Mao Mao ,CPM,CPM-L



PRETTY MISS X IS PRETTY DANGEROUS



KUMARESH GHOSH



Midnapore, 7:

They call her Miss X. She is young and pretty. And is ready to kill. Miss X is the latest leader of tribals to have sent shivers down the police administration in Bengal’s badlands, virtually running a parallel government in Midnapore’s Kankrajhore region adjoining Bankura and Purulia.

Already on the backfoot following the burst in political violence, police are now grappling with the threat from the Nari Mukti Samiti, the women’s front of the Naxalite Maoist Communist Centre (MCC), commanded by Miss X.

The outfit has issued a fatwa for a poll boycott in the region. Officials are so scared of Miss X that poll personnel of 100 booths in Midnapore, 70 in Bankura and 30 in Purulia will reach their destinations only on the morning of May 10, and not a day earlier as is the rule, for fear of being kidnapped by the women’s brigade.

Raised around six months ago, Miss X and her band of 1,000 women — most of them in their twenties — have struck terror in the violence-ravaged region. The outfit, born of the red soil, has ensured that the red flags of the Left Front have been pulled down.

The women’s wargroup has repeatedly attacked the police and looted arms from them; imposed “taxes” on kendu leaf collectors and slapped “fines” on government and non-government employees. Buses and trucks passing through the area are not spared either.

The 5’7” Miss X is not a tribal herself. Around 28 years old, she is a Hindu who can converse in English, Bengali and the tribal languages. Her dialect is not Midnapori, rather, it is distinctly Calcuttan. But she refuses to say where she’s from.

Sitting under a sal tree deep inside the forests of Kankrajhore, Miss X explains why it was necessary to put together a women’s force.

“Tribal women are more resilient than the men, and have a spirit to fight. Men are more culturally inclined and too laid back: they are satisfied with a bowl of mahua (the local liquor) and singing. Women are the ones who have to bear the burden of the family by working the whole day. Once they return home after toiling in the fields, they have to look after the children and cook. This daily struggle has inspired us to raise a women’s force which we think is more effective. We believe in women’s empowerment.”

Men tribal leaders, she points out, had in the past fallen prey to the lure of big money and had “sold” their struggle for money. Moreover, the likes of Chunibala Hansda, the Jharkhand Party legislator from the region, and Chuni Kotal, the first Lodha graduate from the region, have inspired the women to come forward and join the struggle.

Police, Miss X says with a giggle, are afraid to venture into her territory. “Whenever the police come to arrest our comrades, we throw a cordon around them and attack them with arrows, stones, lathis and even broomsticks. The women sometimes even bite them. The police are embarrassed to be humiliated by a group of women. So they go back.”

Miss X herself carries a gun which she conceals in her sari. Two women, armed with bows and arrows, guard her round-the-clock.

So what are they fighting for? Adjusting the dark glasses that covers her eyes, Miss X asserts that the group has nothing personal against the government officials; it is only protesting against the sorry plight of the tribals and she is willing to launch a war if necessary.

There has been no development in the region, she says: water is not available, there are very few schools and the less said about the roads the better.

“When we came to train the people, we found that the women have to travel around 10 km every day to fetch drinking water from a pahari jharna (waterfall). She has to walk through forests full of wild animals. There is no work for them in summer as there is no water available for irrigation. The family has to survive on roots dug up from beneath the soil. What sort of life is this? If this is what the CPM has given us, then we don’t have any faith in democracy,” says the Naxalite leader.

The area the front controls is barren and arid, sal and shegun trees dot the undulating, unmetalled roads. Rice is not a produce here because of the lack of irrigation water. Jowar, bajra and makai are grown on some patches of land. The tribals’ main cultivation is the savoy grass from which they make ropes.

The men themselves are not too worried about the women in the family taking up arms. Says Sambhu Soren, whose wife and daughter are both members of Miss X’s band: “I’m a carefree man and have no time for politics. Let my wife and daughter decide whether to vote and whom to vote for. I’ll follow their diktat.”

Aqil, Sameer

Both of you make the very valid argument that the military simply cannot be trusted to make correct decisions in as complex a place as Pakistan. And given Pakistani military dictators` (including Musharraf`s) track record, such trust is very much like putting one`s head in the mouth of a hungry lion and hoping that the lion won`t bite.

Why then do I nurse that vain hope? Because, I believe, Pakistan`s head was already deep into the lion`s mouth. So one can only hope and pray that things will work out (for the the average Pakistani, not for the elite) in the long run. One can hope that the very institution that, more than any other, put the nation in such lethal a spot, will have a change of heart and will try to take it out of there.

That`s my prayer and hope, not my expectation. My cynical expectation is much grimmer. Seeing some events unfold over the last few days, I get an uncomfortable feeling that the Pakistani military institution hasn`t changed much at all (as Aquil`s institutionalist view will tell him, even expecting such a miracle to happen can be called sheer idiocy), and that very soon Pakistani military will be back to its good old ways. There is a small chance that the U.S. may get more deeply involved in the internal affairs of Pakistan than has been the case hitherto. If that happens, that involvement will act as a (weak) break on the Pakistani military`s return to its glorious past.

But even then, Aquil and Sameer, AT THIS MOMENT what do you suggest should happen? Let`s be practical. New democratic leadership can not be put in place so quickly. Even if a new Prime Minister could be somehow installed in a matter of weeks, will that leader, in the face of rising religious passions, be able to contain voices of religious extremism? Will the ``silent majority`` be able to assert itself, something it has almost NEVER done in Pakistan? My fear is that the answer to both these questions is the same: No. Let me explain why.

Just yesterday, there was a fairly large demonstration in Karachi against the U.S. (by implication, also against Pakistan`s) stance toward Afganistan. The curious (and happy) thing to notice is that no significant violence was reported. Why? Is it because people taking part in these demonstrations have suddenly become scared of the police? Hell, no! The reason, as Aquil rightly notes, is that these demonstrations are aspects of Mussharraf`s religious card in his bargaining with the US. Musharraf can play that game in a controlled fashion because of the close and symbiotic relationship between the Mullah and the military in Pakistan.

A democratic leader in Pakistan will not possess that advantage. Besides, the military itself will not stop breathing down that leader`s neck. The result, I think, will be national incapacitation, inability to either pull out of the coalition or control the street violence. That is what I meant when I said that the military should put out a few fires, grab its good-boy reward, and get out of the way.

I personally detest military dictators. But, I guess, being a manager, I am trying to think in both ``managerial`` terms and long-term ``institutional`` terms. It`s like this. You may feel that the incumbent CEO of an organization is not good for any stakeholder`s health in the long run (except his own); but you may still want to keep him in his job for a little while if that person has some unique, even if circumsantial, advantages in dealing with an ongoing and major crisis.

Regards,

EK

P.S. Aqil, your mad Mullah thesis is right on the money. I myself have been thinking along the same lines. Do you know of any works (articles or books) that focus on it? Thanks.

Ek:

The Musharaf regime has taken very few, if any, decisions with the interests of the Pakistani people in mind. It has mostly been about maximising power in the hands of one man, and his coterie of generals. The army is playing the mullah card with the US, why arent political parties allowed to take out processions? Because Musharraf wants to get as much political milage out of the mad mullah theory as he can. It`s between the secular me, or the mullah with nukes is the standard nightmare scenario cooked up to convince the West that Mush alone is the answer to Pakistan` woes.

I find it truly amazing that you accept the military as a corporate, political entity and yet you are willing to concede that they will do more good than harm. It`s ironic that you dont have a problem with the army

getting the billions when this not only robs the rest of Pakistan of its due share but only further strengthens the military`s resolve to hold Pakistan hostage to its vested interests.

The military has created a dangerous political vacuum which has the potential to destablize politics. As the war continues in Afghanistan, and public anger against Mush/Bush rises, the Islamic parties will only get bolstered in their resolve to weild power. Will they ever accept the results of elections administered by a partisan military? IF they are madly agitating now under the very nose of the military, what will stop them then?

The military has always played with fire, (Taliban for instance) and emerged unscathed, it is Pakistani society that gets charred with each strategic shift the khakis make.

The military will once again either postpone elections (feelers are in the air already), or manipulate elections and transfer power to the most pliant group of politicians who will accept the GHQ`s conditions for running the country. Once again, Pakistan will suffer a long spell of autocracy, I am afraid. The effects of dictatorships on our state and society are evident for everyone to see. That Musharaf will ever exit power voluntarily is little more than a feel-good illusion. Can you name one Pakistani dictator who has given up power of his own volition?

Eklavya #31:

[On the other hand, in highly militarized societies such as Pakistan, military dictators do enjoy one MANAGERIAL (as opposed to institutional) advantage. They can make and defend decisions when (1) stakes are high, (2) there is likely to be considerable opposition to any given set of decision outcomes, (3) socio-political consensus is absent, and (4) decisions have to be made quickly.]

Pakistan is actually a multi-ethnic, multi-cultural agrarian society with deep rooted tribal identities and not at all a homogeneous militarized society. The make up of state at the higher echelon does not represent Pakistani society, except in assemblies and senate.

The managerial experience that allows consensus only at the level of core commanders and GHQ and expects total obedience from everybody below in the institution is not enough and often not good for a society. Society and democracy works through compromises at every level. The experience of dissent at every level makes a different kind of manager than the one with absolutely no room for dissent at mass (or soldier and low ranking officers) level. You can actually see the difference in every appearance by Mush in the media. He usually gets angry and gives very short answer to questions critical of him or his fellow (even retired ones) ``managers``.

Most of the major decisions by military dictators in Pakistan actually ended up hurting Pakistan. They branded traitors and loyal politicians in former East Pakistan, they decided to go for military action, they are responsible for atrocities and dismemberment of Pakistan, they raised the importance of Kashmir dispute to a level of most important outstanding issue towards normalization of relations with the benefit of higher military spending for themselves, they are responsible for all the Afghan mess by betting on wrong horses from the outset, they wasted close to 800 million dollar in the arid mountains of Kargill. The list of AH Zia Ulhaq is so long that I do not want to go through that. Just Islamization and creating and backing terrorist sectarian organization will suffice me to make the point.

On the other hand, despite all the alleged or real corruptions, it was civilian government who did whatever little development we have to show for. Most of the Universities, colleges, roads, hospitals, airports, banks and other civilian institutions were actually created by civilian governments during their relatively short span of power with continous heavy handed interference from military especially during BB and NS governments, none of them would be there if not for military dictatorship of Zia.

Even Mush supporters here at chowk go to great lengths to differentiate between Mush and other military dictators of Pakistan. Mush will be lumped with the rest once there is a new military dictator who is different than the rest.

In short, a different kind of managerial experience in the absence of socio-political consensus and considerations lead to irrationat and erratic quick moves, some of them may be good-by sheer luck as current siding with USA.

Zafar Al Talib # 29

``Why hasn’t he given you any then? Anyway, I was talking to Arrested Development, aap yahan kyun aa mare?``

Zafar Jee,

Why can`t you Indians understand one simple fact,

that this ``phenomenon`` has multiple personalities

and sometimes they get confused amongst themselves

as to who is who.BTW, he/she/they are genuine

Indians and you must feel proud of him/her/them:))

Regards.

re: Aqil # 28

Aqil,

Musharraf is already in power. He is there, whether we like him or not. The question is: What is the best course of action for Pakistan and for Musharraf NOW?

I fully agree with your insitutionalist perspective. No matter how swanky their dresses and polished their diction, military dictators are never better than democratic dictators for the long term weal of any large and complex nation. Military men can not escape the one INSTITUTIONAL disadvantage they invariably suffer: for all their patriotic protestations, they protect and promote primarily the interests of one institution - the military (to military sympathizers - it is a matter of mindset, not conspiracy).

On the other hand, in highly militarized societies such as Pakistan, military dictators do enjoy one MANAGERIAL (as opposed to institutional) advantage. They can make and defend decisions when (1) stakes are high, (2) there is likely to be considerable opposition to any given set of decision outcomes, (3) socio-political consensus is absent, and (4) decisions have to be made quickly.

So, let us see where Pakistan stands TODAY. A major decision has already been made. Pakistan has decided to ditch the very Taliban it created and nurtured, and join hands with the US. NOW, in the short run, the challenge is managerial. Call it fire fighting. Call it a kind of restructuring. There are somethings that must be done TODAY: keep the religious fanatics at bay, drive the best possible bargain with the US, protect Pakistan`s ``strategic assets.``

Only an all-powerful man backed by an all-powerful institution in Pakistan - the military - can meet that challenge at this point in time.

So how long should Musharraf`s stay be? In other words, how long is that aforementioned ``short term?`` I would say, as short as possible. Musharraf, if he is really intelligent, should go back to the barracks as soon as he has been able to put out some major fires, and grabbed a few cool billions from the U.S.. Then, Pakistan`s military should the get the hell out of Pakistan`s political affairs. Money will come from the US. A great deal of that money will end up with the Pakistani military. The military should enjoy that money. But for God`s sake, don`t poke your nose into political affairs any more.

Will Musharraf ultimately fail us? I hope not. I say that with much trepidation. Musharraf has been making all the right moves after Sep 11. But these are short-term moves. In terms of long-term strategic thinking his past record has been abysmal.

Regards.

27:0 EST Reply #: 29

Zafar Al-TalibReply Bapu # 24

“Now god only can give you few cells of neurones if you b

Why hasn’t he given you any then? Anyway, I was talking to Arrested Development, aap yahan kyun aa mare?``]]

You are losing it already Kiddo

1/ why do you reply to post that i adres to Samina ,Or Stuka or anyone other than you .Cant Bapu do that for anyone elses adressed.???

2/Dont be echolililiac.Do you know what that means.Go consult any dictionary good enough to explainit to you

3/If with my neourones i could master IIT & other tests of Hyped ndian tough Tests ,which you couldnt .Now what that says????

I am getting bored talking to you like a wall.

Reply Bapu # 24

“Now god only can give you few cells of neurones if you beg.”

Why hasn’t he given you any then? Anyway, I was talking to Arrested Development, aap yahan kyun aa mare?

Let me deconstruct two fallacies par excellence that were floated by two readers:

1) The army has a strategic take on things.

Like what? taking us to war in Kargil when the civilian govt was engaged in a peace process? That was a stregic blunder of immeasurable proportions. Do you even know how much that strategic take cost us? According to some credible estimates, US$800 million.

2) Musharaf should tide over the current situtaion..



Dictators once ensconsed in the comforts of power will do anything to stay there. Ayub wanted to give us a progressive Pakistan, stayed for 11 years, Zia wanted to hold elections/transfer power in 90 days stayed for another 11...No political/social force in Pakistan is strong enough to challenge a Khaki usurper, only accidents/wars do that for us. I just hope this time the cataclysm is bearable.

Zahra, I guess the questions on institutions have been addressed by Sadna. I would just like to add, in line with the noble laureate D North`s political economy approach, that institutions set the rules of the game--both formal, informal as well as their implementation. Together they determine how politics plays out. Organizations are the players of the political matrix, made up of groups of individuals brough together by common political, economic or social objectives. For instance, political organizations are political parties, parliaments, parliamentary committees etc. The immediate objective of political organizations is power maximisation, reelection etc, but the ultimate objective, according to North and others, is survival because all organizations live in a world of scarcity and hence competition. `The institutional framework determines the incentive structure of the society. It is the interplay between these forces that shapes the features of the polity and the economy.`

The argument above is laced in academic trappings of institutional political economy but I think it captures the essence of why institutions matter, and why some societies exhibit better political/economic performance and others don`t.

Sameer, I am not surprised by the political naivette you point to, in fact, most of Pakistan`s pseudo-intellectual liberals as well as state-subsidized academics shared the same view post Oct 99. The military was our last hope as civilian politicians had destroyed the economy, institutions, and as Mush put it NS has ``threatened the integrity of Pakistan`s last credible institution``, read: tried to fire me for

running my own parallel government, with its own India, Afghanistan, and nuclear policies.

I am just posting an article I wrote for the Friday Times last week. Hope all of you will enjoy reading it. I look forward to your feedback.

Aqil

“That civilian politcians are corrupt is a moot point. If you compare the bank accounts/assets of some of our illustrious khakis who have made billions cranking the machinery of lucrative defence deals/contracts, civilians will come out as angels.”

…..what a paradox…..men who’d kill for their country end up killing the country itself…

re: Sammerjb # 22

Very impressive. Institutions, institutions, institutions, that`s what a society needs.

Musharraf should see his country through the current crisis. I hope he succeeds, and succeeds well. Then he should step away. In the long run, messy democracy is far better than the most elegant dictatorship of military men.

#16

``Corruption is part of all systems. From Germary to South Korea to

Italy, politicians have been found guilty of misuse of power and

financial misappropriations. But because these countries have

functioning institutions, constitutions that lay down the minimum

legal and systemic standards, corruption is minimal, detected and

punished. In countries like Pakistan, where the only law is Khaki,

where Supreme Court judges have to take an oath of loyalty to a

self-appointed President, where society is polarised along ethnic

and linguistic lines, where institutions are seen as employment

agencies for favoured groups, democracy is bound to run into

snags in the short to medium term. That does not in anyway mean

that the military should come marching in to save us from

corruption, when it is subject to zero accountability for its own

actions.``

Beautifully put! The last part relates to something i don`t understand- how the pakis living in the west sincerely believe that the military is above corruption or that it would clean up the polity.

It may be that the military, by being an equal opportunity employer, has a broader constituency than most politicians and corruption there will ``benefit`` a wider group of people and power, by being more widely distributed in this sense is more democratic. Pakis in general don`t seem to mind that subversion of power is more insidious than financial corruption. Army take over of power is part & parcel of pak history and not something you unduly worry over.

I still cannot get over the idea that someone could simply snatch power with force alone. It`s such a mideval notion..

#: 21

Zafar Al-Talib

Reply Arrested Development # 27

“I CAN TALK BENGALI ,I CAN WRITE BENGALI ,I CAN READ BENGALI ,BUT I WILL DERECOGNIZE ANY SEDITION AGAIN OF BENGALI .BENGALI IS NOT BISCUIT TO BE BROKEN CHEWED LIKE PAAN!!”

No point talking in any language unless you have something to say.



ZarafAl Tulba,

``Yarab na woh samjhe haine na samjhe ge mere baat

DE aur AQAL unko jo na de mujh ko zabaan aur ``

Now god only can give you few cells of neurones if you beg.

If you cant post in the RIGHT(CORRECT)place how much `magaz` do you have to understand?????He doesnt want 4 th time partition of Bengal.I bet you didnt even know that how many times Bengal under went partition after the British.If you are ignorent of History ,dont make FOOL of yourself.The only reason you have hindian applauding you b/c you sing there song .The day you change the tune ,all the applause will be dead silent as grave yard.

Zahra #19
``What lies beneath, has to be analyzed, reviewed and evaluated. ``
In the Pakistani context, Pakistanis can do that best.

Talking of institutions of governance, the author can answer best.

My own commonsense answers to your questions are like this:

``What is an institution? What`s an individual? Why does the individual lean on an institution? What is the purpose of an institution?``

Institutions of governance are norms of behaviour and modes of functioning for those making laws, spending public money and making policy decisions about national/regional affairs, on other words norms for settling matters between large numbers of people.

An individual in a society needs institutions of governance, to bring order and hence productivity into his own life, his relations with others and his surroundings. (Anarchists will tell you otherwise, they want to do way with goverment altogether).

``By creating institutions, do we create harmony?``

Stable institutions of governance can create harmony. The norms and modes of functioning must ensure that those making laws, spending public money and making public policy do so with ``public interest`` and ``public consent`` in mind, norms which individuals/groups pursuing their own legitimate/illegitimate interests cannot violate easily.

Once these norms and modes of functioning are firmly in place and are widely accepted, the peculiarities of the individuals/groups/interests operating within them, do not shake the order in society so much.

``By letting the individuals comply by the norms set by the institutions, do we create better individuals?``

The order brought about by norms can ``empower`` individuals and groups to participate in ``socially-constructive`` activity on their own/others behalf if the institution defines ``public interest`` widely enough to include the individuals`/groups` interests and if the institution defines ``public consent`` widely enough to allow the individual/group working to fulfil these in public.

A communist party member being allowed cast a vote in the erstwhile Soviet Communist Party wouldnot have done much good for the interests of the general Soviet public, for example.

Thanks Aqil, for making an excellent case for democracy in Pakistan. I am not sure about how long you have been following interactions at Chowk but most Pakistanis here are favorable to Mush. Many of them started favoring the day he took over Pakistan with the help of 111 brigade. The logic they used was a reverse logic, then. Because NS had low IQ, did not speak good English and considered corrupt; Mush could not be worse than NS. They failed to differentiate between individuals and institutions. When institution is strong, an average leader or even corrupt leadership is not detrimental to the outcome. A fair example would be Pakistan Army. As a strong institution it does not suffer much from good, average or below average COAS. Same is the case with democratic institutions. A military leader may be good with respect to his specialty or institution but that is actually a drawback for military governments for the reason you mentioned-the self-serving interest of the military institution.

The present government is pretty corrupt in the sense that its low-level honesty is coupled with high level ineptness. Syed Ahmed and you have pointed out some examples of corruption like filling up civilian positions with military personnel, raising defense budget by cheating, accumulating all positions in one hand and highly centralized government with negligible power of provinces, run by low level and almost unknown operatives. Here is a person who is supposed to be given a mandate by selective justices of Supreme Court (after kicking out possible opponents), exacting personal revenge from NS for firing him by granting him life imprisonment in absurdly fraudulent case, 22 foreign trips with absolutely no results before September 11, 2001- with about 15 of them relating to exiling NS to Saudi Arabia, talking big about devolution while accumulating all power in his own hand-absolutely no power to provinces (by appointing useless and inept governors and ministers) and on and on.

Somehow people do not understand that honesty or smartness in a respective field for individuals at decisive positions in governing is almost irrelevant to better governance. Better English speaking and perhaps honest head of state can just not substitute the demolition of democratic institutions. It reminds me an old joke that goes something like:

An African tribe announced end to cannibalism. A western Christian journalist went to interview the tribal chief and congratulated him on finally civilizing and converting to Christianity. At the end of interview, he asked the chief about the remaining cannibals who may still be practicing cannibalism. The chief replied proudly: We do not have any cannibals left here. We ate the last remaining one yesterday.

or craeting a sin-free world (Taliban style) by emptying the world of people.

A military general with a gun in hand, is standing on the dead body of democracy claiming honesty.

Please continue interacting at chowk. In a sea of interactions directed by passions and pre-conceived notions, reason and logic has been in short supply and small number of responses here attest clearly to the victory of faith over reason- as if Pakistan is meaningless without Islam and Kashmir. The desires of her 140 million people for a decent living do not matter. They are just a horde with no culture or history!!!

Thanks Romair about PIA. The point is that killing the patient is not a solution for infection. The best solution is to create immunity to corruption through strengthening institutions, liberalizing and privatizing sate run institutions and let the share holders decide the fate and direction of PIA, banks and other institutions. Incidentally, public is generally considered, sort of, share holders in the affairs of a nation. They must be asked as to how and by whom they would like to be ruled.

Reply Arrested Development # 27

“I CAN TALK BENGALI ,I CAN WRITE BENGALI ,I CAN READ BENGALI ,BUT I WILL DERECOGNIZE ANY SEDITION AGAIN OF BENGALI .BENGALI IS NOT BISCUIT TO BE BROKEN CHEWED LIKE PAAN!!”

No point talking in any language unless you have something to say.

Reply Aicha # 28

“Bengali - apart from this word ``buburushia`` none at all - but need to learn it anyways so this might be an excellent opportunity !!!”

Vaisai…mujhe bhi nahin aathi hai (but under no circumstances mention this to Dr Mr Sigalph Dada Esq, ok)

“ and ``in exile`` - my commiserations yeh kaise ho gayaa ??”

Yeh tho hamare late martyred Praydent Saheb, Dr Mr Latif Chappu III, ke zemane ki baath hai…

Zafar

Sadna:

You are too phurteelee(quick)in showering God`s choicest blessings on Mr.Shah :) But I must mention that you have extracted exactly the same lines that I have been contemplating on. On my end, I ``was`` swept away by:individuals are indispensable, whereas institutions aren`t.

I started writing on this fallacy[mistaken idea] twice, but I could not proceed any further. I guess I was way too charmed by the attractive words :D They are very impressive when you read them hur angle sae :) What lies beneath, has to be analyzed, reviewed and evaluated. What is an institution? What`s an individual? Why does the individual lean on an institution? What is the purpose of an institution? By creating institutions, do we create harmony? By letting the individuals comply by the norms set by the institutions, do we create better individuals?
I am not at ease to commend the writer for his succinct conclusion, despite having a very strong urge to applaud him. I`d rather withhold my applause.


- trying to come out of the charm of the succinct conclusion and be able to analyze and justify my thoughts!

Aqil #16
``So the choice is not between Zia, Bhutto or Ayub, it is between systems and individuals. Individuals are dispensable, institutions are not. ``
May God shower his choicest blessings on you!

Senor gowardhan(with a little g):

Glad to be of assistance :D

:)

Zahra

I like it. Military should be ruling Pakistan because they have a certain *strategic take on certain issues. * Very good.

Dear all,

I`ll try to respond to all the issues that have been raised, though Syed Ahmed`s reply should lay to rest any illusions held by Pakistanis of the transparency in the military/current regime.

I don’t for a second think that anyone who favours Musharraf is plainly brainwashed. Some of our leading intellectual lights share the same illusion. They say Musharraf is secular, honest and well meaning. He wants to reform Pakistan. No quabbles there. But it’s not about good or bad individuals. Musharraf heads Pakistan’s largest political party with clear corporate interests: strategic, financial and political. The military is right wing, conservative with a heavy stake in the status quo as it derives its legitimacy and influence in Pakistan from the existing alignment of political, social and economic forces. To expect an inherently conservative institution to do what a liberation army might is at best fallacious.

Secondly, no matter what the argument is against democracy, and how chaotic it was, which it wasn’t really, a professional army is in most civilised countries of the world under civilian control, no matter how feudal/corrupt the civilians are. The army`s job is to fight wars, use force, conquer territory. That is what they are trained for and paid for. If a civilian was appointed as a Corp Commander, I don’t doubt it will be an utter failure. This is as simple as that.

It is not fair to lay all the blame squarely at the military`s door though. Politicians are corrupt and self-serving just like most interest groups in society are including the military. But as I pointed out above, it is our continuing belief in individuals, as opposed to institutions, that leads to unending disappointment. We like BB one minute, NS the other, and when we are done with them, we wouldn`t mind courting a man who is trained to kill his enemy, not run the affairs of government. So the choice is not between Zia, Bhutto or Ayub, it is between systems and individuals. Individuals are dispensable, institutions are not. Countries with functioning democracies and institutions survive the death or loss of one leader, countries with Suhartos and Zias have no mechanisms for smooth transfers of power. In place of effective institutions that could outlast charismatic legacies, the hunt for another visionary begins every time. Just look at Pakistan`s history and you will understand the point I am trying to make.

Whether uneducated, feudal societies are fit for democracy is presumptuous to say the least. If you look at the results of elections 1988-1997, many feudal stalwarts lost. While this could be attributed to many factors, one major reason was the empowerment that the ballot brings. I am not claiming this to be a generalised truism but it`s a step in the right direction. If you compare data from 1985-1997, the composition of the National Assembly has gradually changed from overly feudalistic to feudal-cum-industrialist. Democracy is evolutionary, and if you think there is any other way of abolishing the feudal curse, please enlighten me. Our reformist military has been in power for more than half our independent history, why didn’t they institute land reforms? Why didn`t Musharraf do it? I`ll tell you why, some of Pakistan`s senior Khakis hold the largest tracts of land bestowed upon them by the state. According to a former finance minister, later sacked by the army, the land owned by the military in Lahore will fetch enough money to retire half of our internal public debt. I am not condoning feudalism in any way, but the democratic process, however flawed, has the ability to purge itself. Painfully slowly but surely.

I condemn what happened during our `sham` democracy. The attack on the Supreme Court, for instance in Sharif`s time was one of the darkest episodes of our history. But insecure civilian rulers in ``follower`` democracies ( a term I borrow from Princeton Political Scientist Atul Kohli) see existing institutions as a direct threat to his/her authority. These inevitably become the first targets of their power consolidation. There is no time limit on democracy. Could be ten years, could be a hundred. My point is this: if corrupt politicians can run a extremely diverse (religion, ethnicity, language) country like India (and I`m not saying that`s a perfect example) why cant they run Pakistan?

Corruption is part of all systems. From Germary to South Korea to Italy, politicians have been found guilty of misuse of power and financial misappropriations. But because these countries have functioning institutions, constitutions that lay down the minimum legal and systemic standards, corruption is minimal, detected and punished. In countries like Pakistan, where the only law is Khaki, where Supreme Court judges have to take an oath of loyalty to a self-appointed President, where society is polarised along ethnic and linguistic lines, where institutions are seen as employment agencies for favoured groups, democracy is bound to run into snags in the short to medium term. That does not in anyway mean that the military should come marching in to save us from corruption, when it is subject to zero accountability for its own actions. Was any General ever held responsible for the artocities, professional negligence and criminal activities in Bangladesh in 1971 despite the fact that the Hamood ur Rehman Commission Report is now in the public domain. General Mush as an ‘honest son of the soil’ should start cleaning the military’s stinking Augean stables before taking on civilians. After all, charity begins at home.

Dear Mr.Shah:

Thank you for a very educating, enlightening, well-put and josheelee post :) I really enjoyed reading it. Chowk is full of all kinds of writers and interactors; and everyone has his/her own style, but your flowing articulation was quite captivating!

[Secondly, the military in Pakistan is the problem to which it pretends to be the solution. For almost our entire history, this institution
had determined the dos and donts of how Pakistan should be run.]

What`s their interest? Power? Or what else? I cannot comprehend this.:(

[The siege mentality all Pakistanis grow up with is perpetuated in our minds through different transmission mechanisms (media, textbooks) the distribution/content of which is under the strict control of the establishment. That the military is honest, and civilians corrupt is something that we unfortunately take for granted.]

I have been following Chowk, on this point, for sometime now. Naive people think that if a person is writing in favor of the current regime that means zaroor iss kae chachae mamae will be in the armed forces. If it`s otherwise, then zaroor chacha mamas will be on the other end. This is so silly! What about if your family is mashallah big enough to be everywhere: armed forces, civil services, government services and private sector? I remembered when I wrote in favor of Musharraf after the coup, I read the same remarks, that you`ve come up with: text books, brain-washing and pata naheen kya kya.

Being from Lahore, I strongly feel that the democratic government added a very positive change to the map of Lahore. There were some great new developments underway in the area of IT in my university in Lahore. I am not sure what happened to them at the end, but I know now the students have access to the internet in their hostels and that`s excellento, aside from many other things!!! Also, UET, Lahore had a General, as the VC, way before the coup[as far as I remember].

On the other end, I feel the gallons/pints/litres of alcohol our army-men consume, if that`s sold outside, probably enough money will be generated to run some schools for the illiterates. But on second thoughts, that`s a gender based corruption; it has nothing to do with an institution? But, it is corruption? Isn`t it? Kind of, I guess?

With all said, when it comes to training and discipline, I feel these traits are only found amongst the armed forces and the civil servants. Every maja gama should not be allowed to come forth by paying money to their party-heads and occupying the seat to become Shae`hen`sha`e`Hind. That is very unfortunate! Ironically, that has been happening for a long time. Well, someone will come back with the argument: of course, we will select the rasheeds and badars as they are part of our community. Well, we also have eunuchs, criminals, and many others as significant chapters of our country`s book; why not allow them to come forth?

[That civilian politcians are corrupt is a moot point. If you compare the bank accounts/assets of some of our illustrious khakis who have made billions cranking the machinery of lucrative defence deals/contracts, civilians will come out as angels. There are more twists to this sordid tale though.]

No arguments! I agree!

[The military is hell-bent on engineering the political process to give us ``real`` democracy through some of the most corrupt, opportunistic political actors around.]

Can we have a govt with representatives from both, military and civilian side? Well, if you go for that, then you are again in trouble. The interests won`t match. OK. Then? Why do you need military, as part of your ruling clan? In my view, because of their strategic take on certain issues. In fact, I heard Musharraf the second time, while getting some groceries at a local Pakistani Store for a friend, yesterday. He was speaking to a congregation of journalists within Pakistan. Surprisingly, his verbiage on certain issues, was exactly what I had on my mind :) His mun`toar jawab daenaa kaa tareeqaa was also very amusing. I liked it! I have been away for almost 8 years now, and I do visit home once every year or every other year, but I do not follow any Pakistani Programs. So, it was a delight for me to watch and hear what I was hearing. Somehow, there was a sad point out there too, and I would come back to it later.

[I am willing to make the assumption that we can become fit through democracy, the we are not fit for democracy argument is the resort of those who think that it is a luxury illiterate Pakistanis can ill-afford. These are the same people who have brought Pakistan to ruins, whether they be khakis or civilians.]

I really liked your rationale! Specially, the way you`ve put it! :) I want to add more here, but I`d rather not. Out of sheer respect, I would skip my thoughts!

[As I emphasised earliear, all this takes time.]

Can we have some definitive time on the above, based on your research and studies? 5 years? 10 years? how many years? whole life?


[I ask all the readers, has the military ever allowed a govt to stay in power? have they every given democracy a chance for more than a few years before they have decided to come and take over in the `national interest`.]

From the perspective of discussing our social structure and its fabric, I agree with your above stance. But before the military took over, we had nothing, but chaos. Our institutions were being molested right and left. Now, you may come forth and say that the chaos should have been allowed to continue as it would have ``subsided`` with time.

Question:Should not we give the devil its due, when it deserves?

[On a traffic ``chowk`` yesterday, I saw a car sticker which said: ``We dont overtake, We take over. Pakistan Army.`` These seemingly benign words reflect a self-important, arrogant institutional mindset that has held us hostage to its vested interests for long enough.]

Indeed, the benign words had some malignancy, that could not be detected by the naked eye only.

[It was only when he crossed the lines drawn by the GHQ for civilian PMs, that he became unacceptable to the messianice guardians of our ideological frontiers.]

[Would you rather live in a country hostage to the whims of one man appointed by the power of the gun to lead us into the new millenium?? or
a ``corrupt politician`` in a ``sham`` democracy. I would certainly opt for the latter.]

That`s a perspective! In fact, a strong opinion!

Aqil #11: ``Would you rather live in a country hostage to the whims of one man appointed by the power of the gun to lead us into the new millenium?? or a ``corrupt politician`` in a ``sham`` democracy. I would certainly opt for the latter.``

In case of Pakistan, it depends on who the one man happens to be. If it happens to be Musharraf, then I would prefer the former option. If it were someone like Zia, I would go for the later option. If it were Ayub, then it is a tough call. Five years ago, I would have opted for the later option, but now I am tilting more and more towards the former option.

AnyvPakistani who commits corruption, specially in a position of power, needs to be pointed out and sent to the slammer, be they in the military or civilian sectors. If people spent more time doing this, rather than attempting to get into a pissing contest to decide whether civilians are more corrupt than the Generals or vice versa, Pakistan would finally start progressing. No one holding a gun to BB and NS`s head or to a military leader`s head when they committed corruption. It`s about time, we put the blame on the people who committed these acts, rather than blaming, ``other forces.``

Pakistan is a feudal society. Until this feudalism is finished, there will never be democracy. Uptil that time, Pakistanis have to just hope that the military or civilian dictator (every Pakistani ruler in my lifetime has been an elected or non-elected dictator) that ends up ruling them, is personally honest and patriotic, and worldly wise. And when through some miracle, someone like that does show up, we should swallow our prejudices and likes and dislikes, thank our lucky stars, and wish him/her luck, and hope he/she can dismantle the feudal society, so we can for once have real democracy.

I am all for activism and rennaissance etc. But the last thing I will be active about is a pledge to let the likes of BB and NS back into power. I have and will be active for honest guys like Imran Khan and company. And the day, such people have even an iota of a chance of forming a govt. in Pakistan, I will become a full-fledged Pakistani lover of democracy.

The feudals, who still control approximately 66% of every election, must be laughing their pants off, when they hear educated Pakistanis wanting them back into power. Aaa bail, mujhay maar.

I just want a leader who can raise the living standard of the poorest Pakistani. For the time being, it makes no difference where the person originates from. If ABV was to resign as the PM of India, and show that he could do the above for Pakistan, I would even support him.

The oft repeated phrase, that elections after elections, will lead to democracy in Pakistan, has no meat in it. This rule only applies in non-feudal societies. And a National Assembly run by the feudals themselves will never reform this system. Just like Generals themselves will never reform the Army. And beaurecrats themselves will never reform the civil services.

Military Corruption in Pakistan:

Corruption under Musharraf …..

The Army declares it cut its budget by 7% as a cost cutting measure – Instead it moves its pensions ( retired personnel) into a civilian budget overhead…( Rs 26B) . In real terms the army increases its budget by about 11% even though the country is on the brink of Financial default. IN one of my earlier posts I had all the financial numbers.

Lt Gen Jahansher Gulzar Kiyani ( former X Corp Commander Pindi) uses strong arm tactics to replace key contenders for the Nazim’s position with a kinsman as the only exclusive candidate in Pindi. The Candidate wins the election…when all other candidates withdraw in his favor…. Musharraf later transfers Gen Kiyani to the administrative post of Adjutant General.

Under IMF pressure the Govt is forced to implement a tax on agriculture on the Books. The law is not enforced nor a re any taxes collected from the feudals.

The Military Govt hires Several advisers of huge salaries ( some in dollar amounts ) yto advise the various govt ministries – Most of these advisers are kinsmen of the Army staff. Upon criticism by the media many of the advisors were subsequently let go.


The NAB practices selective accountability using strong arm tactics which has resulted in custodial deaths. The pliant politicians - Saifullahs and the Chaudhries are hardly touched. Former Army beneficiaries who were declared to be US dollar billonaires ( ny the same regime) included Gohar Ayub, AsLam Beg, Humayun Abdur Rahman and Ijaz ul Haq have not been brought to justice.

To all respondents:

I will make a few general comments with regard to the replies I have read on my piece.

Let me make it very clear at the outset that the excerpt that appeared on chowk was from a Global Report which had regional reports with fixed TORs to cover trends, prospects in relation to the period June 2000-July 2001. Obviously, this approach had many flaws. Regional coverage disguised peculiar country developments/trends, the report was event driven and hence newsy/journalistic. The point: expecting a state of the corruption report to apportion blame or dissect the deep rooted causes of corruption

in South Asian countries is asking for too much.

Secondly, the military in Pakistan is the problem to which it pretends to be the solution. For almost our entire history, this institution

had determined the dos and donts of how Pakistan should be run. The siege mentality all Pakistanis grow up with is perpetuated in our minds through

different transmission mechanisms (media, textbooks) the distribution/content of which is under the strict control of the establishment. That the military is honest, and civilians corrupt is something that we unfortunately take for granted. That civilian politcians are corrupt is a moot point. If you compare the bank accounts/assets of some of our illustrious khakis who have made billions cranking the machinery of lucrative defence deals/contracts, civilians will come out as angels. There are more twists to this sordid tale though.

Who are these corrupt politicos? Who is NS? The product of the military`s direct political and financial patronage who was propped as a counter to the People`s party. History is repeating itself once again. The military is hell-bent on engineering the political process to give us ``real`` democracy through some of the most corrupt, opportunistic political actors around. In turn, when these politicians try to assert their control over govt, much like Nawaz Sharif`s India policy, they will be branded corrupt and send packing.

I am willing to make the assumption that we can become fit through democracy, the we are not fit for democracy argument is the resort of those who think that it is a luxury illiterate Pakistanis can ill-afford. These are the same people who have brought Pakistan to ruins, whether they be khakis or civilians.

On PIA and other public agencies, political processes, distorted by by repeated military interventions, will only result in the kind of patronage politics that politicians have to resort to. Insecure civilian govermments, pressed to the wall by defence and debt expenditures on the one hand, and political compulsions on the other, have simply got no choice but to dole out jobs. Dont forget that politics is an evolutionary process, and politicians

have the sole purpose, just like the generals or anyone else in the power game, to maximise their hold on power. This is as true for Pakistan as it is for the world`s so called established democracies. But in countries where the democratic process is allowed to operate, institutions take root. Political parties,

independent election commissions, so on and so forth. These checks and balances in return ensure that power is not monoploized by one institution/individual. As I emphasised earliear, all this takes time. I ask all the readers, has the military ever allowed a govt to stay in power? have they every given democracy a chance for more than a few years before they have decided to come and take over in the `national interest`. On a traffic ``chowk`` yesterday, I saw a car sticker which said:

``We dont overtake, We take over. Pakistan Army.`` These seemingly benign words reflect a self-important, arrogant institutional mindset that has held us hostage to its vested interests for long enough.

Corruption is a complex phenemona, in fact too complex for the black and white solutions conceived by the army. I know on good authority how govt deals are clinched these days, corruption has only been swept under the carpet.

A civilian defence ministry official known to me was transferred last week when he refused to approve a cement contract in favour of one of the military foundations (which pays no tax)as their bid was far higher. That particular foundation is down Rs 15 billion in debt, has been bailed out twice in the past three years by govt guarantees to private banks. Talk of corruption?

Would someone care to explain why they are offended by political cronies, when Musharraf has militarised each and every civilian institution by appointing his khaki cronies. Btw, how was the cabinet selected and under what authority?

The bogey of corruption, in my opinion, has been used by the military in tandem with the conservative religious right to undermine the political opposition. Would anyone care to tell me if Nawaz Sharif was less corrupt when the ISI

used millions (an affidavit to this effect by the then head of the ISI is still in the Supreme Court)to prop up the IJI against the the PPP.

Was Nawaz Sharif any less corrupt when he was catapulted to power with a ``heavy mandate``?

It was only when he crossed the lines drawn by the GHQ for civilian PMs, that he became unacceptable to the messianice guardians of our ideological frontiers. Would you rather live in a country hostage to the whims of one man appointed by the power of the gun to lead us into the new millenium?? or

a ``corrupt politician`` in a ``sham`` democracy. I would certainly opt for the latter.

SameerJB #9: ``Take for example PIA. They have been in trouble for several years. They are basically over staffed-too much spending for a small airline. The bribery and comissions only matter when they buy any new planes and that has not happened for a while. I do not know of any case of BB or NS making money from PIA.``

Your comments regarding the PIA are partially correct. It is one of the most over-staffed and inefficiently run airlines in the world. It is a tiny little airline with 45 or so aircraft, yet its staff is in 5 figures.

However, BB and NS have a lot to do with this over-staffing. Infact, they are the main causes of it. PIA has the strongest labor unions in Pakistan. I have a lot of friends in various positions in the PIA, and know this for a fact.

Its pilots union is notorious for, ``going by the book,`` while its ground employee unions are mini-PPPs and mini-PMLs. It is said that these unions are the next strongest political groups in Pakistan, after the PPP and PML, themselves. One union is supported by PPP and the other by PML.

Due to the above, it has been impossible to reform PIA. PPP and PML stuff the airlines with their jiyalas and followers. This is why it is over-staffed. And they ensure, these guys never get fired. Even the ones who are fired, are hired back years later, with full back-pay (this actually did happen). BB is well-known for filling top PIA positions with her PPP Sindhi mahnos, who had no qualifications for the jobs. Even Air Marshall Daudpota (ex-governor of Sind, and a Sindhi himself) resigned as MD PIA, when he got tired of BB appointing one unqualified Sindhi, after another, from her pool of PPP wallas.

And of course, NS appoints people like Shahid Khaqan Abbasi as MD PIA, whose only qualification was that he was the son of an ex-PAF fighter pilot.

It is infact a fact that these labor unions, went into the office of one of the MDs (or VPs), tied him up, and urinated in his office. That is how powerful each of the PPP and PML backed groups is in PIA.

Luckily, BB and NS can`t use their influence in the PIA at the moment. I believe the present govt. is trying hard to lay-off all the PPP and PML cronies from the PIA. I have heard they have laid off, or are planning to lay-off 5,000 people. The PIA unions will fight tooth and nail, to stop the airlines from being privatized, because they will then forced to earn their pay. It would have been impossible to privatize it under BB and NS. However, now there is hope. That is if anyone is willing to buy this white elephant.

There are very few problems in Pakistan of the 90s, in which BB and NS did not have a hand. They robbed the country silly, in all areas (of course, Shahbaz Sharif did widen two roads in Lahore, so perhaps it was all worth it). And PIA was a primary cash cow for their party members.

What is heartening is that the current cabinet, and Musharraf himself, have not had a single corruption case or rumour against them. I never thought I would able to say that in my lifetime about any Pakistani cabinet.

The true effects of corruption (bribery and comissions) on the problems highlighted by the author will rank pretty low in a list of causes. Of course, no corruption is better than corrupyion but mismanagement, poor plannimg, inept leadership, high population growth rate, a culture not kind and fair to women, tropical climate and many many other factors cotribute to our problems.

Take for example PIA. They have been in trouble for several years. They are basically over staffed-too much spending for a small airline. The bribery and comissions only matter when they buy any new planes and that has not happened for a while. I do not know of any case of BB or NS making money from PIA.

Overthrowing 5 successive democratic governments on the charges of corruption is the biggest corruption itself.

Ras Siddiqui #3 Would you care to post the details on this (your friend jailed for 3 years on corruption charges) case?

Shah Sahib

Thank you very much. Thank you very much.good write. You are professorsahib and I just hotel worker but our mental thinking is same. Surprise.

Too much corrouption all always.But Prof. man is needed to be good practical. Agree?. I deal with big people rich, powerful (not like Babus of Kachheris)they need power, drink and little else to relax.We can give no power but other things ok, you understand sir. Good.

Corrouption is ok sir. No problom with ahmed madani.If everybody corroupt means no corrouption correct. its like lubrication for engine. Engine burnt no lubrication ok. You agree.No lubrication piston does no move ment same way soshal life of country stop. WE need corrouption for poor to survive life ok. What poor man and woman do with out Bakshish?. Our bakshish make real money.Without lubrication Pakistan will come to standstill. Case give example.Our company steals power( have you heared K..U..N....D...), we give money to line man and engineer babu, good food and booze. No problem. Our co. does not make much money. Say no free power, price goes 30%, less cool, no guests, madani get shaft ok. Madani fired. No problom for you but what about Ahmed Madai?.Rich and powerful ok no corrouption but what about poor.Police can live on salary be honest. He has to earn ok.He can no make sandwhich with honesty ok. Just tired of pompous babus write essays. good bye. our business down due to OSB and this talking corrouption. We have prof.s we provide girls it is corrouption? or not/Even college Prof are corroupt. They make tutions no good teaching. they take money to `bad score` all scondrels

Aqil Shah:

Thanks for a timely thought!

Although your article talks about the trends and current malpractices in great detail, but I feel you should have incorporated the impact of the current events in your analysis as well. Fine, we(Pakistan) are in a ``sick`` region and do get affected by what happens in that region. But, we should be ``least`` interested and involved in ``any`` neighbor country and their crooks. They all can go to hell and die there! The emphasis, outside our borders, is a complete distraction. That`s what we have been wasting our time in. Could you all please avoid going there ? Could you all please focus on the future of your own country? Could you all please invest your analytical skills in the interest of your own country?

At present, due to the changing attitude of the world towards Pakistan, we need to have a well-defined structure in place. Many countries have promised to offer economic assistance and it`s extremely important that that money is wisely utilized. All the more reason, we should NOT permit any change at the government level. Many politicians(with a well-defined character)will try to come forth with their hidden agendas, to take advantage of the current situation. From that point of view, I think you should have emphasized on the next steps than informing the readers about the trends and malpractices of the past leaders(ruin-ers).

Well, no one is 100 % perfect when it comes to running a state, but we need to come up with very well defined rules and regulations for our own good. And the masses should be well aware of all the development projects and their implementations that are underway. I have personally come across some genuine folks in bureaucracy, who have taken on quite a few challenging tasks and are doing very well. There are quite a few great steps underway, by the current government, and I strongly feel that they should not do the mistake of letting any political party come forth at this crucial time. Some, would come forth, with their plea, that a soldier`s role is to defend the country only and he should not be responsible for running a state; but in the present situation and based on the past dramas, one has to let the soldier drive the ship to its destination with prudence and care. I feel your article should have had this component. But, probably, by giving the history of all the politicians and events, you wanted to imply what was out there. Sometimes reading between the lines works very well; on other occasions, things have to be spelled out. Just my thought!

``A further problem is the absence in the region of functioning judicial systems. While all South Asian countries have rigorous anti-corruption laws, conviction rates are low and sentences rarely carried out. The judicial process is open to manipulation and cases drag on for years.``

There is another point here. We have quite a few excellent lawyers, law-enforcers and judges out there. Ironically, in the past, many have lost their lives for taking a stand. Many were threatened to death if they took a step in the right direction. The judiciary is not a stand alone entity. Same is true for the civil servants! Another very dear friend`s late father was the Vice Chancellor of my university(UET)in Lahore; whenever he tried to implement a positive step or a disciplinary move, he and his family would receive threats. Still, he stood up many times and had to face dire-consequences for his positive steps. In a way, it was damn ironic that the ones who meant well had to face criticism, death-threats and mental agony. Probably, it says something about the social-mental-sickness that needs to be looked into. I am not a social scientist, but I think that in our country, the flow of actions, takes the top-down approach. So, if you end up living under a corrupt regime, you are left with very little power, to implement your positive input. It does not mean that your conscience dies; it simply means that you lose the vigor and the drive. And that`s a big loss for a nation!

Reappointment of Fernades as Defence Misnister is height of corruption.

Mona

Someone should actually research how many people have died BECAUSE of corruption. How many school teachers did not get their salaries, how many hospitals ran short of medicine or staff, how many pot holes in the roads caused fatal accidents, and punish the people in a way proportion to the deaths caused.

``In Pakistan, five successive elected governments have been dismissed on charges of corruption and mismanagement since 1988``

Dismissed by the purest of the pure no less?

Ras

(My friend Naveed Qamar just ``celebrated`` the start of his third year in jail without a trial
in Pakistan on ``corruption`` charges!``

Our corrupt leaders are more incompetent than other people`s corrupt leaders!!

Maybe that will someday be a blessing??

Ketan Parekh=2 thousands crores rs

Harshad Mehta=2 thousands rores rs.

Just the latest booty (loot ) of white collar ,insider trading & banking fraud.

This is only the recent atleast Harshad Mehta has been charged with many large sums of money more than this borrowing from Nationalised banks(essentially govt.of India=taxed ppls money)easily & declaring bankruptsy or disappearing.This all may seem to god to be true ,but its much eaier than robbing nank the hard way like bonney & clyde or Dillinger .!That is the fun part of it.No gun shooting or risk to there life involved.