US exploring deal to limit Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal

7The Obama administration is exploring a deal with Pakistan that would limit the scope of Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal, the fastest-growing on Earth. The talks are the first in the decade since one of the founders of its nuclear programme, Abdul Qadeer Khan, was caught selling the country’s nuclear technology around the world. The talks are being held in advance of the arrival of Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif in Washington next week. They focus on American concern that Pakistan might be on the verge of deploying a small tactical nuclear weapon — explicitly modeled on weapons the United States put in Europe during the Cold War to deter a Soviet invasion — that would be far harder to secure than the country’s arsenal of larger weapons. Read: Pakistan likely to secure civil nuclear deal with US: report But outside experts familiar with the discussions, which have echoes of the Obama administration’s first approaches to Iran on its nuclear programme three years ago, expressed deep skepticism that Pakistan is ready to put limits on a program that is the pride of the nation, and that it regards as its only real defense against India. The discussions are being led by Peter R Lavoy, a longtime intelligence expert on the Pakistani programme who is now on the staff of the National Security Council. At the White House on Thursday, Josh Earnest, the press secretary, was asked about the talks and broke from the administration’s previous position of refusing to comment. “A deal like the one that’s been discussed publicly is not something that’s likely to come to fruition next week,” he said. “But the United States and Pakistan are regularly engaged in a dialogue about the importance of nuclear security. And I would anticipate that that dialogue would include conversations between the leaders of our two countries.” The central element of the proposal, according to other officials and outside experts, would be a relaxation of strict controls put on Pakistan by the Nuclear Suppliers Group, a loose affiliation of nations that tries to control the proliferation of weapons. Read: Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal could become world’s third-biggest: report “If Pakistan would take the actions requested by the United States, it would essentially amount to recognition of rehabilitation and would essentially amount to parole,” said George Perkovich, vice president for studies at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, who has maintained contacts with the Pakistani nuclear establishment. “I think it’s worth a try,” Perkovich said. “But I have my doubts that the Pakistanis are capable of doing this.” David Ignatius, a columnist for The Washington Post, first disclosed the exploratory talks in a column a week ago. Since then, several other officials and outside experts have talked in more detail about the effort, although the White House has refused to comment. The activity of Abdul Qadeer Khan, who lives in retirement in a comfortable neighborhood in Islamabad after many years of house arrest, prompted more than a decade of American-led punishment of Pakistan’s nuclear enterprises. He ran what amounted to the world’s most sophisticated black market in the equipment needed to make nuclear fuel, and he did business with Iran, North Korea and Libya. When Libya turned over the equipment it bought, in late 2003, it included a nearly complete design for one of China’s first nuclear weapons. Read: No choice: Pakistan obliged to develop nukes, says Aizaz Pakistani officials denied that any of the country’s leaders knew of Qadeer Khan’s black market activities, a story American officials did not believe because some of the equipment was shipped on Pakistani Air Force cargo planes. While Qadeer Khan is not under formal restrictions today, he has not left Pakistan in years and has been prohibited from talking to most outsiders. Even before entering office, President Obama was interested in addressing the Pakistani nuclear problem, considered by most proliferation experts to be the most dangerous in the world. But until now, most efforts to manage the problem have been covert. During the Bush administration, the United States spent as much as $100 million on a highly classified program to help secure the country’s nuclear arsenal, helping with physical security and the training of Pakistani security personnel. Those efforts continued in the Obama years, with State Department, Energy Department and intelligence officials meeting secretly, in locales around the world, with senior Pakistani officials from the Strategic Plans Division, which controls the arsenal. They used those sessions to argue to the Pakistanis that fielding the small, short-range nuclear weapons, which Pakistan designed to use against an invading Indian ground force, would be highly risky. Read: Pakistan seeking US cooperation on civil nuclear energy American officials have told Congress they are increasingly convinced that most of Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal is under good safeguards, with warheads separated from delivery vehicles and a series of measures in place to guard against unauthorised use. But they fear the smaller weapons are easier to steal, or would be easier to use should they fall into the hands of a rogue commander. “All it takes is one commander with secret radical sympathies, and you have a big problem,” said one former official who dealt with the issue. The message appears to have resonated; an unknown number of the tactical weapons were built, but not deployed. It is that problem that Lavoy and others are trying to forestall, along with preventing Pakistan from deploying some long-range missiles that could reach well beyond India. But American leverage has been hard to find. Unlike Iran, Pakistan never signed the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, the international agreement that prohibits nations, except for existing declared nuclear states like the United States, from possessing a nuclear arsenal. Pakistan is not alone in that distinction: India and Israel also have not signed. (North Korea has twice declared that it has withdrawn from the treaty, in 1993 and 2003.) Ordinarily, any country’s refusal to sign the treaty would preclude American nuclear cooperation. So Pakistani officials remain angry with the American decision to enter an agreement with India in 2005 allowing India to buy civil nuclear technology, even though it remains outside the treaty and put no limits on its nuclear programme. Read: US providing precision strike technology to Pakistan: Jilani Under that agreement, India’s nuclear infrastructure was split with a civilian program that is under international inspection, and a military programme that is not. Pakistani officials have demanded the same arrangement. That does not appear to be on the table. Instead, the United States is exploring ways to relax restrictions on nuclear-related technology to Pakistan, perhaps with a long-term goal of allowing the country to join the Nuclear Suppliers Group, which regulates the sale of the technology. That would be largely symbolic: Pakistan manages to import or make what it needs for its nuclear arsenal, and China has already broken ground on a $9.6 billion nuclear power complex in Karachi. PM Nawaz presided over the ceremony.

US exploring deal to limit Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal By David E Sanger
Tribune.com.pk
This article is in partnership with The New York Times.

The right to education

In the elite’s quest to put an end to the unwritten private school ‘policy’ of draining parents’ bank accounts, many arguments — for and against — have been heard. Much media attention has been drawn to the cause. In September, the prime minister stepped in and ordered that no private school was to raise its fee this year. While this debate on private school fees continues, the crucial issue that should have actually been debated has been brushed under the carpet. The reality is simple and yet often dismissed as ‘naive’ or ‘impossible to achieve’. If the public system of education was given the priority it deserves, the debacle of increasing fees could have been avoided and, more importantly, the education system would benefit those it is intended to benefit: the students. Between 2003 and 2013, private school enrolment has increased from 26 per cent to 39 per cent. Out of the estimated 225,711 schools in Pakistan, only 66,089 are private schools, i.e., 71 per cent of schools are government schools and 61 per cent of children attend these government schools, while a mere 39 per cent are enrolled in the private education system. Similarly, out of the 1,406,090 teachers in Pakistan, only 680,908 are private school teachers. These statistics, provided by the state itself, are demonstrative of a reality the state must accept: significantly more resources are an immediate necessity in the public system of education in Pakistan. After all, Pakistan is not a state where the right to education is only to be guaranteed to children growing up in higher-income households. Article 25A of the Constitution states: “The State shall provide free and compulsory education to all children of the age of five to 16 years in such manner as may be determined by law.” Similarly, Article 38(d) delineates the obligation of the state to “provide basic necessities of life, such as food, clothing, housing, education and medical relief…” Following the 18th Amendment, education has become the responsibility of the provinces. There exist a handful of laws across some of the provinces that guarantee the right to free and compulsory education, whether in the form of a legislative instrument or ordinance. Yet, implementation of these provisions is nearly impossible to identify. In addition to its own domestic law commitments, Pakistan has undertaken international legal obligations with regard to the provision of education. Pakistan is party to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) and the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC). Under Article 13 of the ICESCR, Pakistan has undertaken to achieve full realisation of the rights to compulsory and free primary education for all and the progressive introduction of free secondary education. Moreover, Article 14 of the ICESCR binds Pakistan to “work out and adopt a detailed plan of action for the progressive implementation, within a reasonable number of years, to be fixed in the plan, of the principle of compulsory education free of charge for all”. Similarly, under the CRC, Pakistan is to ensure that primary education be “free and compulsory for all” and higher education accessible to all “on the basis of capacity by every appropriate means”. Moreover, Pakistan is to “take measures to encourage regular attendance at schools and the reduction of drop-out rates”. The fact remains that 47 per cent of Pakistani children are out of school. In other words, 25 million out of 53 million children, between the ages of five and 16, are out of school. It isn’t that the legislative framework for free and compulsory education does not exist at federal and provincial levels. There is a complete lack of political will on the part of each successive government in prioritising education. While those of us lucky enough to afford a private school education have platforms through which our voices can be heard, and the issue of our fees discussed, the majority of our population does not share that blessing. Instead of selfishly seeking benefit for a minority of the population (the elite), those in influential positions must voice the concern of the nations’ children: revamp the public education system. The government cannot be allowed to hide behind the excuse of ‘financial constraints’ when it comes to its lack of attention on education, especially when we have multi-million dollar projects in other sectors. Education is a priority and must be dealt with as such.

The right to education By Imaan Hazir Mazari
The writer is a Research Associate at the Research Society of International Law
Trubune.com.pk

Why The World Is Spinning Into Crisis Everywhere?

Israel vs. Hamas. Ukraine vs. Russia. Unaccompanied minors at the Texas border. Syria in flames, with a militant “caliphate” at the door. Iran stalling for time on nukes. A rising China sowing fear throughout the rest of Asia.
The world seems dangerously unmanageable these days.
President Barack Obama is paying a political price at home, with 55 percent of Americans polled by Pew now disapproving of his handling of foreign affairs -- a dramatic reversal from 2009, when his approval rating was 56 percent. While experts argue about how much Obama and his policies are really to blame, the truth is that he occupies the Oval Office at a time of historic flux and of diminished clout, not only for the U.S. but also for the idea of a dominant global power.
To understand that, you need to revisit an influential article published in Foreign Affairs in 2008 by Richard Haass. It’s called “The Age of Nonpolarity,” and Haass wrote it as he was advising presidential candidates behind the scenes in both parties.
Advertisement

AdChoices
Haass, the longtime president of the nonpartisan Council on Foreign Relations (and before that a staffer for President Jimmy Carter and the two Bushes), painted a grim picture of an unsettled, chaotic and dangerously diffuse world Familiar methods of diplomacy, statecraft and war had become feeble, if not useless, in the 21st century, he wrote. The ages of “unipolar” power (i.e., a dominant United States) were over; so were the times of “multi-polar” power, such as the first half of the 20th century.
Now the world faced a free-for-all in which “non-state actors” -- terrorists, global corporations, religious and ethnic tribes, sovereign wealth funds and nonprofit charities, to name a few -- were as crucial as countries in shaping the order of a “nonpolar” world.
To be clear, non-state actors -- which also include alliances such as the United Nations and the European Union, "civil society" foundations and academic institutions -- could be forces for healing as well as mayhem. As Haass noted more recently to The Huffington Post, "If you are talking about education or health care globally, for example, it wouldn't make any sense not to have the Gates Foundation involved." But still these new entities do not follow the familiar playbook of nations.
The Internet and international floods of capital were empowering these non-state players, Haass wrote in 2008. No nation or set of nations was “in charge.” Ethnic, religious and regional rivalries had been set free by the weakness of nation-states, and by an Internet that enables digital forces who couldn't care less about the wisdom of Metternich or Gorbachev-Reagan diplomacy.
The U.S. had to figure out how to operate in this new world, in which my-way-or-the-highway wouldn’t work, and neither would traditional nation-to-nation “talks,” Haass wrote. Military power would be just as important as before, he wrote, but it would have to be shrewdly and surgically applied, and almost always in concert not only with other countries but with other non-state players.
Although Haass had spent many years working for Republicans, his article caught the eye of then-Sen. Obama. Early in his presidency, Obama journeyed to Cairo to give a speech designed to reach out to the Islamic world and, in doing so, to enunciate the core of his own global theory. He declared that the real America did not fit the “crude stereotype of a self-interested empire” -- and certainly would not do so while he was in charge.
The new interdependence of the world, the president said, was in conflict with a “human history [that] has often been a record of nations and tribes subjugating one another to serve their own interests.
“Yet, in this new age, such attitudes are self-defeating,” Obama said. “Given our interdependence, any world order that elevates one nation or group of people over another will inevitably fail. So whatever we think of the past, we must not be prisoners of it. Our problems must be dealt with through partnership; progress must be shared.”
It was an idealistic, uplifting message -- and one that seemed to fit the changing times described by Haass. Four months later, officials in Norway announced that they were giving Obama the Nobel Peace Prize.
Six years after he wrote his original article, Haass is busy writing another, and it's an even more timely call for a new understanding of how to manage world crises. The evidence that we need to do better is in the headlines and the videos.
“Things have gotten much worse,” he told HuffPost. “It’s even more urgent that we figure out a new form of world governance, because the old ones don’t work.”
The disruptive forces he wrote about before have become more potent and unsettling, and President Obama, while he understands the challenge, hasn’t always executed as well as he could have, Haass said. There's a rising factor Haass didn’t predict: the waves of immigrants and refugees “within nations and between them,” who are not easily dealt with by traditional diplomatic or military methods.
“I’m updating the piece,” he said, for a world that is now at nonpolarity plus.
The tangled flare-ups around the world are made more intractable by the fact that one leader can’t phone another and cut a deal that guarantees results. The organizing principals are in flux. Consider these trouble spots:
Israel and Hamas. Once upon a time, the lid was kept on the Levant largely by two great powers, the U.S. and Saudi Arabia. Those days are over, thanks to Shia sectarianism, Sunni terrorism in the form of al Qaeda and now the Islamic State in Iraq and al-Sham (ISIS), and the Israelis’ growing willingness to ignore U.S. pressure.
Ukraine and Russia. Ever unsure of its identity, Russia is once again on the march, albeit not as in the days of uniformed soldiers driving tanks into Slavic city squares. President Vladimir Putin has empowered Ukrainian separatists whom he can’t quite control, with disastrous results.
Two major petro-theocracies. One is Iran, the other Saudi Arabia. Old-style notions of statecraft don’t rule these two oil-rich players. Instead, they are the modern spear points of a 14-centuries-long sectarian war, in which religion is nationhood.
“The Caliphate.” Nothing demonstrates the deterioration of the very idea of “nation” more than the pop-up caliphate declared by ISIS. Sunni insurgents have seized territory in Syria and Iraq, the modern borders of which were drawn by the so-called Great Powers a century ago.
According to Haass, the Far East is the only region where world affairs are being conducted along old lines. “The China situation is the most traditional,” he said. It's a rising major power dealing with its longtime regional rivals.
But even in and around China, there are non-state players and problems. China is exporting tens of thousands of its own workers throughout Southeast Asia, an international business model that is causing friction in Vietnam and Cambodia. And the People’s Republic is being harassed on its western flank by Islamic separatists, who want nothing more -- or less -- than the freedom to worship as they wish.
China’s rulers have responded with a vicious military crackdown.
But that method won’t work in the rest of the world anymore. It may not even work in China.

Why The World Is Spinning Into Crisis Everywhere
By  Howard Fineman Global Editorial Director
http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/5614634

Anti-Muslim hate crimes to get own category, bringing Islamophobia in line with anti-Semitism

Anti-Muslim hate crimes are to be recorded as a separate category for the first time by police in England and Wales, Prime Minister David Cameron has announced. The move brings Islamophobia in line with anti-Semitic attacks targeting Jews, which have been recorded separately for some time. It was announced as the Home Office prepared to unveil new statistics which are expected to show a rise in numbers of hate crimes over the past year, continuing the trend seen in 2013/14, when offences involving religious hatred soared by 45 per cent and race hate crime by 4 per cent in the wake of the murder of soldier Lee Rigby. Offences involving religious hatred soared by 45 per cent since the murder of Lee Rigby Mr Cameron also announced he will provide new funding to boost security at religious buildings, as he hosted the first meeting of a new Community Engagement Forum at Downing Street. The Forum brings together representatives of faiths including Islam from around the country, and is intended to provide the PM with an opportunity to hear directly from those challenging extremism in the community. Announcing its creation in a speech in Birmingham in July, Mr Cameron said it was part of a drive to isolate extremists and "actively encourage reforming and moderate voices" in Muslim communities. Downing Street said the Forum will discuss the objectives of the Government's upcoming counter-extremism strategy, which is due for publication later this month and will include plans for a national coalition to challenge and speak out against extremism. The meeting will also consider what more the authorities can do to help support young British Muslims. Speaking ahead of the meeting, the Prime Minister said: "We all have a role to play in confronting extremism. That's why I have invited important Muslim and non-Muslim figures to join the new Community Engagement Forum, so I can hear directly about their work in our communities, the challenges they face and so that they can be part of our One Nation strategy to defeat it. "I want to build a national coalition to challenge and speak out against extremists and the poison they peddle. I want British Muslims to know we will back them to stand against those who spread hate and to counter the narrative which says Muslims do not feel British. "And I want police to take more action against those who persecute others simply because of their religion." Official Home Office figures showed that police forces in England and Wales recorded 2,273 crimes perceived to be motivated by religious hostility in 2013/14, up 45 per cent from the 1,573 recoded in 2012/13. Over the same period, recorded race hate crimes increased by 4 per cent from 35,889 to 37,484. The increases were ascribed by an official report at the time in part to the fallout from Fusilier Rigby's murder by Islamist extremists in south-east London in May 2013. Home Secretary Theresa May said: "Hate crime has no place in Britain and I am determined to make further progress to ensure we can eradicate this deplorable act. "Working with police to provide a breakdown in religious-based hate crime data will help forces to build community trust, target their resources and enable the public to hold them to account. "Our Counter-Extremism Strategy will be published later this month and will introduce a wide range of measures to defeat all forms of extremism. These will empower communities to confront extremist ideologies, and build more cohesive communities where everyone feels able to succeed." Downing Street said no figure has yet been decided for the additional funding to protect places of worship, which will be fixed following discussion with members of the new Forum.

by Andrew Woodcock, independent.co.uk

Assessing the state of democracy in Pakistan

The press and electronic media are frequently reminding us that the civil and military leaderships are on the ‘same page’ and there exists a smooth relationship between the two. This is only partially true. Considering that we have a long history of direct military rule and that even during civilian tenures there has been a pervasive influence of the military in foreign, defence and internal security matters, the imbalance in favour of the military is taken as a normal phenomenon. The reality, however, is that Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif, during the current tenure, has tactically conceded additional powers to the military in its traditional areas of interest and in return has developed a good working relationship with the institution. In essence, civilians are losing space to the military through incompetence, infighting and a poor public image. Where will this slide end and how damaging is it for the country’s national interest, are serious questions that need to be addressed. Formulation of the Afghan policy, relations with the Taliban and facilitating talks between the Taliban and the Afghan government, all fall under the purview of the military, with little contribution from the political leadership. With India, too, it is the military that primarily influences policy, whether it is the Kashmir issue, progress on the Mumbai case or granting of the MFN status. With the US, it is Pakistan’s contribution to the security and stability of Afghanistan that determines the quality of relations. On the domestic front, due to the incompetence of civilian governments over the years, the primary responsibility of the internal security of Karachi has shifted to the Rangers. In Fata, where the military has cleared militant sanctuaries, civil authority has yet to assume responsibility. In Swat, the army remains deployed to maintain peace whereas it was expected that the civilian government would have started normal functioning by now. In addition, the government has undermined its political power by remaining disinterested in parliament and in the functioning of important committees that deal with foreign policy, national security and defence. The Public Accounts Committee, too, seems to have lost its power and importance. The opposition’s role in weakening political parties has been no less influential. While Imran Khan’s agitation-based politics and crusade against corruption may have raised awareness among the people of their rights, conversely these have also been a huge drag on institutional development and have contributed towards destabilising our fragile democratic structure. The PTI’s indifference towards legislative matters and major national and international issues betrays Khan’s obsession with a single-point agenda of electoral reforms and dislodging the government. The PPP’s performance during its previous stint at the federal level and its present quality of governance in Sindh is a slur on its leadership. Its callous attitude in parliament as an opposition party has further soiled its reputation. The Rangers’ present drive in Karachi to link corruption with terrorism has tightened the squeeze on political parties and degraded politicians in the eyes of the public. With such serious shortcomings in our political parties, it is not surprising that it has provided the military with the opportunity to fill the vacuum and extend its influence in affairs that normally fall in the civilian domain. The military richly deserves praise for the sacrifice of its valiant soldiers and the single-minded and resolute determination of General Raheel Sharif to combat insurgency. It has truly changed the course in favour of the state. But until military success is combined with civilian law enforcement and development, peace will be short-lived. The government should address issues of governance, take the lead in spreading education and create economic opportunities in Fata. It seems oblivious of its responsibilities in this regard. As the military gains success in battling insurgency and expands its reach in civilian affairs, it has created an impressive profile on the national scene. Modern sophisticated techniques also help in its image-building that is being used astutely by its media managers and rather amateurishly by the civilian leadership. However, it is worth learning from our own and other countries’ experience regarding the consequences of the prolonged dominance of the military on the domestic and international scene. Here, the relevant question is: does this serve the long-term interest of the military itself, apart from satisfying its narrow institutional motivations? We have the clear example of how Pakistan got entangled in the Afghan imbroglio and pursued security-oriented policies, the ill-effects of which we suffer to date. Pakistanis are generally ignorant of the importance of the country’s soft power and what can help enhance it. With the civilian leadership being overshadowed by the military due to the former’s incompetence and other factors, its international standing isn’t that high. When institutional interests do not harmonise with national goals, the country cannot reach its full potential. The question is: how can this be corrected, if at all? We have the example of developing countries, including Muslim ones like Turkey, Indonesia and a few others that were subjected to prolonged military rule and have partially succeeded in transitioning to a stage where the civil-military balance has been largely restored. This transformation was made possible only when the performance of the civilian government and that of political parties improved to the satisfaction of the people. Once the people gain confidence that there is a distinct improvement in performance, then their support and confidence in democracy increases. It is rather unfortunate that Turkey, lately, is facing grave internal and external challenges that have placed a great strain on its democratic credentials. Experience shows that when the military leadership develops a clear vision and understanding that it is in the foremost interest of the country to have strong political and state institutions, this realisation can greatly facilitate the democratic process. We’ve had military leaderships in the past that wanted to institutionalise the military’s role. There were several self-serving politicians and opinion-makers, who echoed and even led the discourse that Pakistan needs such a system. We are fortunate that there is a relatively better understanding of the long-term benefits of strengthening democracy despite the generally disappointing performance of our political parties.
By Talat Masood:
The writer is a retired lieutenant general of the Pakistan Army and a former federal secretary. He has also served as chairman of the Pakistan Ordnance Factories Board

http://tribune.com.pk/story/972275/assessing-the-state-of-democracy/

Education Map of Pakistan

Mapping education in Pakistan 2015
DAWN.COM
This map is a unique tool that gives an overview of situation of education in each district allowing the user to pinpoint the key reasons behind their district’s performance.

It intends to serve as a bridge between politicians and the user, allowing you to send a letter to your elected political representatives about education issues in your district.

The themes of the letters hosted on the map change regularly making it possible for you to take up a range of issues with your elected representatives.

Currently the map allows you to send a letter to the Finance Minister Ishaq Dar but August onwards it will enable you to connect directly to your local MNA and MPA as well. 》》》》
http://www.dawn.com/news/1182722/mapping-education-in-pakistan-2015

Democracy and governance

GOOD governance, human rights and individual freedoms, and rule of law are among the main features of democracy. A democratic state cannot choose one, or some, of these and reject others. Common citizens may see good governance as a priority because this is directly linked to their daily life needs. But the significance of freedom and other attributes of democracy cannot be discounted; they are equally important to fulfil one’s physical and emotional needs. Denying emotional, spiritual and aesthetic needs to people does not mean these cease to exist. This is as simple as it is evident. Complexities arise when certain state institutions or groups of people start to believe that people need only what the power elites think they need. Eventually, the power elites start seeing the people as their subjects who have only physical needs; other needs, in their eyes, fall in the domain of religion. At the same time, these elites try to also regulate religion because they fear ‘miscreants’ can exploit it and create trouble in the way of good governance. Although the Muslim world on the whole is facing this dilemma, the Arab world is a chronic example of this model of governance that looks after only the physical needs of the people. The Arab Spring epitomised the fact that people are not merely subjects; nor are their needs merely physical. In some cases, power elites provided more space to their people to resolve the crisis. In others, power elites refused to do so thus plunging their states into turmoil. However, it is becoming increasingly difficult for power elites in these countries to use this model of governance as a tool to suppress freedom and democracy. Ironically, Muslim countries including Pakistan, which are in a process of democratic transition, still seek inspiration from failed models. One’s interaction with power elites in Islamabad would suggest that the concepts of democracy and freedom do not figure in the latter’s ideas of state-building. For instance, Middle Eastern controlled-regime models continue to inspire many retired military top officials and some of them even talk about replicating these models in Pakistan. In their case, it is understandable because they come from a disciplined background, but when former diplomats and bureaucrats also start advocating the same, it surprises many. Pakistani political elites, too, have similar views: many politicians see Turkey and Malaysia as model states in terms of governance, democracy and freedom of expression. Power elites conceive of democracy only in the electoral perspective and reject other democratic values. Interestingly, an overwhelming majority of former civil and military officials and politicians also admire Chinese political and governance models even though they know that despite many commonalities, they cannot be fully adopted in Pakistan. Dig deep into their mind and sources of inspiration and you will find one common thing: desire for a controlled regime in Pakistan. Political leaders, however, favour controlled freedom through the power of the vote. Another important common factor in their thought processes is that they conceive of democracy only in the electoral perspective. They hardly believe in other democratic values. Here they use religion as a crutch to argue that the people already have a socio-political code of life provided by religion. This dichotomy exists in other parts of the Muslim world as well. A debate on the compatibility between Islam and democracy still consumes the intellectual energy of Muslim scholars. In Pakistan’s context, this discourse provides an opening for the partnership between the religious clergy and security and political power elites. In many instances in the past, the first segment became a beneficiary in the power-sharing mechanism and developed a comfortable working relationship with both civilian and military rulers. The religious elite’s ability to manipulate street power and provide ideological narratives in support of power elites has furthered their own religious-ideological cause as well. The sustainability and legitimacy of regimes also depends on two institutions: judiciary and media, which limit the absolute power of the state. Both institutions address the need for justice and freedom and enjoy comparatively more freedom in democratic regimes, but controlling these institutions is a desire that remains alive among states in democratic transition. No doubt the process of democratisation takes time, but the media and judiciary are major instruments in this process. If these institutions are not functioning well, that means a blockage has occurred in the transition process. Many scholars maintain that the true spirit of pluralistic and secular democracy has never been followed in the country. For instance, renowned scholar Kamran Tahir believes that the Objectives Resolution of 1949 allowed undue space to religious elements in the country’s social and political set-up. As a consequence, political instability and authoritarianism became an abiding feature. Other scholars see democracy from the perspective of governance and advocate that democracy is not the final or only form of governance. Among them, a few argue in the socio-political context and assert that it is only the elites who rule in the name of democracy. Others bring in the religious argument to advocate that justice should be the ultimate objective of any form of governance. The latter point of view is closely aligned to that of religious scholars who also believe only in the electoral process. Non-democratic tendencies among the religious clergy are very common in Pakistan. Religiously inspired militants also borrow this argument from the clergy that democracy is contrary to Islam. All shades of religious clergy have strong belief in religious identity and value it above democratic norms. The authoritarian power elites see no problem in these views and narratives but are against violent struggle for achieving the objectives. The power elites believe that non-violent clerics should help the state build counter-narratives against violence. Pakistan is not part of the Gulf or Middle East region. Nor is it located in Central Asia or North Africa. It cannot pull itself out from the South Asian region. Though the state of democracy, good governance and freedom of expression is not satisfactory in the region, its fate is nevertheless linked with democratic institutionalisation. What else could be the counter-narrative to extremism than democracy, good governance and freedom of expression?

Democracy and governance
By  MUHAMMAD AMIR RANA
The writer is a security analyst
Dawn.com

Peril of ignoring the building blocks of knowledge

The education of our population, in all its forms, from birth till the time our brain stops functioning, is the one factor that determines the quality of our lives, and collectively, our country. No wonder in all the major religions the word `Iqra` was the first to be mentioned. How has Lahore fared in its long history in terms of its human development? This vital aspect of existence needs to be better understood, researched and written about, let alone discussed in the highest forums, which it definitely is not. Our per capita investment in education is the lowest in the world. That Jinnah wished to spend `one fifth of our income on educating the poor` is ignored, and ignored it is to the peril of the State itself. This piece was inspired by an article in a Lahore newspaper by my friend Dr. Tahir Kamran, a much sought after scholar when he was in Cambridge, though unsurprisingly neglected in his homeland. The learned doctor suggested that we need fewer, but high quality universities based onresearch, with better archives and libraries, and, most importantly, teachers of the highest calibre capable of inspiring the young to question and dare. Imagine a country where it has become difficult to find an appropriate vice chancellor to the numerous universities. Mind you one recent research found out that only eight per cent of the population can actually write a letter themselves. With a functional literacy rate (based on newspapers printed) of 0.01 per cent, what can one expect? If we go back in time we see that almost 3,500 years ago the great Harappa Civilisation had produced important seats of learning. This the few archaeological digs have proven beyond doubt. We can see the lasting results of just two scholars who studied between 1,000-600 BC at Taxila University, were born probably east of Charsadda, moved to Lahore, or nearby, to learn mathematics and the languages from the great scholars of the city. Mathematics and languages are the building blocks of knowledge, and it was here that they produced two books that are stillacknowledged as the greatest books on the rules of grammar and mathematics. Mind you in our villages till very recent mathematics by rote learning of complex multiplication tables and a few languages like Punjabi, Persian and Arabic was normal. Even this has died out. There is a real threat to our very mother tongue. What could be more serious, let alone dangerous,for our very culture and way of life? The outstanding book of the rules of grammar is `Astadhyayi`, or `eight chapter grammar`. Its 3,990 `sutras` (rules) are even today studied by scholars of linguistics. This to the present day determines the basic rules of grammar for all languages of the world. This work of the great Harappa grammarian Rishi Panini took over 20 years of research and data collection. The rigours of scholarship have to be endured. Then we have the great Katyayana who set about 300 years later explaining the work of Panini in a village near Gujranwala, with his `Vartikas` (explanations)ofPanini`s`sutras`. He was followed by Patanjali, another grammarian who wrote `Mahabhasya` or a `great com-mentary` on the works of Panini and the explanations by Katyayana. In these very columns a few years ago I dwelt on the great mathematician from Salatura (Lahore`s ancient name in the Vedas) by the name of Pingala, brother of Panini. While Rishi Panini was travelling, researching and compiling his great `Astadhyayi`, his brother was also delving to advance the science of mathematics and logic. His immortal work is called `Chandahshatra`. In this the very first known description of the binary numeral system came through. What we today term `Pascal`s Triangle` was first described in great detail in this great book. One of his students, the great Halayudha, improved on this work and the first use of (n-1) was seen. The origins of modern mathematics had been trulylaid. But Pingala was the very first man, so it seems, who came up with the concept of a `zero`. The use of the word `shunya`, meaning in Sanskrit `empty, or a void` came about. The empty space that emerged when the sum of anything was nothing was noteddown by a small circle. Arab mathematicians who learnt the Sanskrit word `shunya` termed it `sifr`, meaning `nothing, or empty`. From the word `sifr` the Venetians who travelled the trade routes between Rome and the Arab word called it `zyphrus` which is a Latin-Greek origin word. This is not surprising for the elite used Latin when writing. The word `zefiro` was how they described it in their old texts, which went on to be called `zero` once English influence prevailed. Mind you the massive effort of Al-Mansur of Spain in 773 AD to translate all the old Sanskrit works to some extent formed the foundation of scientific research and thought. The influence of Greek thinking flushed with their scholars excited by the l The end of religious plurality naturally bred intolerance and the Dark Ages set in Europe.Have absolutely no doubt that scholarship needs to be nurtured, tolerated, protected and encouraged, and this is done best in `relative` peace. In periods of strife, and hence intolerance, scholarship is lost as it happened to Sanskrit, the language of our land, and dare I say ancestors, which continuous military invasions from our western borders fuelled. It took western scholars like Heinrich Roth (d 1668), Johann Hanxleden (d 1731) and Sir William Jones (d 1794) to discover the great works of our land, which in turn led to the development of western philology and linguistics. We see in the history of Lahore, and the Punjab periods of immense scholarship but only when periods of great turmoil ceased. In periods of peace there was tolerance, and hence scholarship. Take the recent events of 1947 when extreme communal hatred led to the partition of the land. The `claims` phenomenon triggered a way of life where corruption is, even today, accepted as `normal`. Corruption and tension are a lethal mix. In such circumstances education becomes a lucrative business as the Stateabdicates this basic role. The end result is `relative` economic backwardness. That India and even Bangladesh have overtaken Pakistan in economic development is, therefore, not surprising. What is our heritage as far as human development goes? The answer is that we have had impressive periods where the creative burst of the literate produced great works that still live. Of recent how we treated Dr. Abdul Salam is before us. I remember as a young journalist interviewing him when all my brother `pen pushers` refused. For days official operatives followed me, some of whom I even entertained to tea at home. Those were torrid times. Mind you they still are. Will the cycle of learning return to our land? For that to happen probably great changes will be needed in the way we view our history, let alone the other sciences. But most important will be the changes that will follow once we ensure that every citizen of this land knows the basics of mathematics and languages, the building blocks of knowledge.
Peril of ignoring the building blocks of knowledge by Majid Sheikh, dawn.com

What Pakistan army chief thinks of India and Afghanistan

IT GOES without saying that when it comes to India, the Government of Pakistan rigidly thinks what the country's chief of army staff (COAS) thinks. The degree of such stranglehold has depended on whether the COAS has directly administered the state under martial law or pulled the levers on the basis of powers historically enjoyed by him. While at present it is ostensibly the latter, General Raheel Sharif, the incumbent COAS, is fast becoming as authoritative as an actual dictator.

Also read: Pak army chief increases military courts for Karachi

It is no secret he considers governance of civilian administrations to be an issue, compares corruption in Pakistan to economic terrorism and labels law enforcement bodies as ineffective. These, he believes, grant him space beyond his remit. The General's omnipotence has increased as a result of his success in arresting the tide against armed radicals in Pakistan. The war against such extremists is far from over; but the militants have of late apparently suffered setbacks.

Of course, even if everything hereafter goes swimmingly for the army, it would consume at least another five years to eradicate the menace. Nevertheless, mainstream Pakistanis sense a transformation from hopeless to hopeful circumstances.

Also read: Enemies stoking terror to destabilise Pakistan: Army chief

The second feather in Sharif's cap has been Pakistan's slight headway with the new Afghan administration of President Ashraf Ghani after years of resistance from the Hamid Karzai-led dispensation. In his 20 months as COAS, he has visited Kabul no less than five times to meet the leadership there. Furthermore, within 48 hours of his appointment last year, General Rizwan Akhtar, the chief of the Pakistan army's espionage wing, the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI), also called on Ghani.

Also read: Daesh is greater threat than Al Qaeda, says Pak army chief

Indeed, Ghani was persuaded to visit the Pakistani army's general headquarters in Rawalpindi during a trip to Pakistan and the head of the National Directorate of Security (NDS) - Afghanistan's intelligence agency reputed to be close of India's Research & Analysis Wing (RAW) - was accorded unprecedented access by being received at and given a tour of ISI's nerve centre.

Sharif has also dangled a carrot of the planned China Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) benefitting Afghanistan.

The efforts, though, have elicited mixed results. Sharif's push to train officers of Afghanistan's security forces in Pakistan, so as to achieve parity with India, has so far been rebuffed; while a draft memorandum of understanding (MOU) submitted by the ISI to the NDS to establish greater co-operation between the two organisations is yet to extract a response.

Also read: 'Pakistan army one of world's best': Afghan army chief

Ghani has clearly proved to be more diplomatic with Islamabad than Karzai. Yet, he and his chief executive officer Abdullah Abdullah could not have been impressed by Sharif insinuating he holds the key to declaring Kabul a war free zone, not to mention him categorising Karzai and the NDS among detractors and spoilers in the path of better relations between Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Also read: Raheel sees link between Indian firing, terrorism

In fact, Sharif has complained to the US Secretary of State John Kerry about RAW allegedly ruining the process for Pakistan in Afghanistan. And threatened to provide proof of an NDS-RAW nexus thwarting his ambitions.

But the general knows, considerable repair work is still required to erase Afghanistan's bitter memory of Pakistan sponsoring the Taleban to oust the mujahideen government in 1996 - not to mention the ISI's continuing liaison with anti-Kabul forces - for reconciliation between the two to take place.

As for India, policy makers in Delhi may rest assured his mind-set is identical to hardliners among his predecessors. He is entrenched in rusty positions of Kashmir being an unfinished agenda of partition and the conflict with India being a war of survival for Pakistan; and has been pursuing age-old Pakistani tactics of unnerving the West by raising a spectre of non-state actors causing a miscalculation with nuclear weapons.

According to an American estimate, Pakistan's army has an active manpower of 550,000. Sharif is said to claim, 182,000 of these are deployed on the Afghanistan border and 150,000 in Kashmir. If that is correct, his troops' preoccupation with the Taleban exposes a soft underbelly. So, as long as this examination is not overcome, he is unlikely to excessively heat up the eastern front.

Also read: We have utmost respect for General Raheel: PPP

Besides, the General has reason to be worried that the momentum gained by his men could be upset by the growing influence of Daesh, who are reportedly offering foot soldiers double the money to fight for it as compared to remuneration hitherto provided by Al Qaeda.

Also read: No need to worry about India: Pakistan army chief

It is an unenviable situation for the Pakistani army to be bogged down in the western front instead of concentrating its resources on India.

Therefore, while it may later return to its design of treating Afghanistan as an extension of Pakistan, it is unlikely to pick a confrontation with Kabul in the immediate future by propping up the Afghan Taleban.

Pakistan realised a long time ago it cannot keep pace with India conventionally. So, it radically altered its strategy to deterrence with a rapid India-centric nuclear weaponisation programme.

Also read: Terrorists are 'common enemy' of Pakistan and Afghanistan

But as long as the soft underbelly exists, Sharif's strategy would be to disconcert the West by talk of a nuclear miscalculation and goad them into pressurising India to resume a composite dialogue. In fact, in the medium term Sharif could even be anxious to lower the temperature with confidence building measures (CBMs).

So, if a western broker suggests CBMs to India, the response should be: tell the General to endorse the Indo-Pak Free Trade Agreement, which was signed in 2012, but is yet to be implemented.

It is difficult for India to trust a Pakistani COAS after his army's repeated provocations and violations since 1948, but western powers could ask: if Sharif can be so overtly proactive with Afghanistan, why can he not end the pretence and play the same role with India? This might just make agreements more binding.

KT Exclusive: What Pakistan army chief thinks of India and Afghanistan
khaleejtimes.com

The writer is an Indian foreign correspondent, who extensively covered Pakistan as CNN's founding South Asia bureau chief. His assessment is based on a recent encounter with General Raheel Sharif at a think-tank in London.

Reasons of extremism and violence in Pakistan [Urdu]

پاکستان میں شدت پسندی کے عوامل اور اسباب

محمد عباس شاد

شدت پسند کم و بیش دنیا کے ہر معاشرے، مذہب اور تہذیب میں پائے جاتے ہیں لیکن ان کی تعداد مٹھی بھر اور پورے معاشرے کے مقابلے میں انتہائی کم ہوتی ہے۔ وہ اپنے اصولوں پر زندگی بسر کرتے رہتے ہیں اور اپنی درسگاہوں تک ہی محدود رہتے ہیں۔ اس کی مثالیں ہمیں آج کے ترقی یافتہ یورپ میں بھی مل جائیں گی کہ جہاں کچھ لوگ سیکولر معاشروں میں جہاں شخصی آزادی اپنی انتہا پر ہے، وہاں بھی سختی سے اپنے شدت پسندانہ خیالات پر کاربند ہیں۔ ہاں وہ ریاست اور نظام سے متصادم نہیں بلکہ اپنے مذہبی مقامات تک ہی محدود ہیں۔

تشویش ناک صورت حال اس وقت پیدا ہوتی ہے جب یہ شدت پسند عناصر ریاست اور نظام پر اثر انداز ہو کر پورے معاشرے کو یرغمال بنا لیں اور معاشرے میں اپنے وجود سے متعلق ایک خوف اور دہشت پیدا کرنے میں کامیاب ہوجائیں۔ پاکستان گزشتہ چند دہائیوں سے اسی طرح کی صورتحال سے دوچار دکھائی دیتا ہے کہ یہاں شدت پسندی نے پورے معاشرے کو اپنی لپیٹ میں لے لیا ہے اور وہ ریاست اور اس کے نظام کو چیلنج کر رہی ہے۔

آئیے پاکستان میں اس مسئلے کے عوامل، اسباب اور پس منظر کا کھوج لگائیں تاکہ کسی ایسے حل کی طرف بڑھا جائے جس سے پاکستان میں شدت پسندی کے بڑھتے ہوئے طوفان پر قابو پایا جاسکے۔

ہمارا یہ خطہ مذہبی رواداری کی ایک پوری تاریخ رکھتا ہے اور یہ سماج صدیوں سے کسی مذہبی و مسلکی تفریق کے بغیر ایک ساتھ رہتا چلا آیا ہے۔ موریہ خاندان کے تیسرے فرمانروا مہاراجہ اشوک اور مغلیہ سلطنت کے بھی تیسرے ہی فرمانروا شہنشاہ اکبر کا نام اس حوالے سے تاریخ نے خصوصی طور پر محفوظ رکھا ہے کہ انہوں نے مذہبی رواداری کی خصوصی مثالیں قائم کیں، لیکن بعد کے زمانے میں آخر وہ کون سے اسباب تھے کہ یہ خطہ، خصوصاً پاکستان، اپنے شدت پسندانہ تشخص کی وجہ سے دنیا میں جانا جانے لگا۔ ہم اپنے دائرے کو محدود رکھتے ہوئے قیامِ پاکستان کے وقت سے ان اسباب و عوامل کا جائزہ لینے کی کوشش کریں گے جو پاکستان میں شدت پسندی کے فروغ کا باعث بنے۔

یہاں صدیوں سے موجود مذہبی رواداری کی روایت اس خطے کی تقسیم کی وجہ سے بھی متاثر ہوئی اور وہ روایت اس وقت مزید کمزور ہوئی جب مذہب کو سیاسی مقاصد کے لیے استعمال کیا گیا۔ تقسیم سے قبل ہندوستان میں مذہب کے سیاسی استعمال سے شدت پسند طبقے مضبوط ہونا شروع ہوئے اور انہوں نے تقسیم کا جواز بھی مذہبی اختلافات میں ڈھونڈنا شروع کر دیا۔

قومی اور سیکولر ریاست کے تخیل کے مقابلے میں مذہبی حکومت کے تصور نے اکثریت کو اپنے سحر میں جکڑ لیا اور یوں آج تک پاکستان میں اٹھنے والی ہر شدت پسند تحریک اپنے مقاصد کے لیے مذہب کا نام استعمال کرتی ہے تاکہ اکثریت کو اپنی جانب راغب کیا جا سکے۔ یہاں تک کہ بیرونی طاقتیں بھی پاکستان میں اپنے مقاصد اور اہداف کے لیے مذہب ہی کو آلے کے طور پر استعمال کرتی ہیں، اور ریاست و عوام کے خلاف بر سرِ پیکار قوتوں کی مالی سرپرستی بھی مذہب کے نام پر ہی کی جاتی ہے، جس کے نتیجے میں ایک پوری معیشت وجود میں آچکی ہے۔ اب یہ جنگ محض نظریاتی دائروں کی جنگ نہیں، بلکہ مفادات اور اپنی اپنی بقا کی جنگ بن چکی ہے جس کی اتحادی اور مدمقابل قوتیں قومی اور بین الاقوامی دونوں سطحوں پر موجود ہیں۔ < کسی معاشرے کی تعلیمی پالیسی اور اس کو بروئے کار لانے والے اساتذہ نئی نسل کی ذہن سازی میں بنیادی کردار ادا کرتے ہیں۔ ہم پاکستان میں پہلے دن سے ہی کوئی قومی اور انسان دوست تعلیمی پالیسی بنانے سے قاصر رہے ہیں۔ ہمارے ہاں بیک وقت کئی طرح کے نصابِ تعلیم ایک ہی طرح کے نتائج پیدا کرتے رہے ہیں۔ ہمارے اساتذہ اس تعلیمی پالیسی کی چھتری تلے مستقبل سے زیادہ ماضی کو زیادہ زیر بحث لاتے رہے، اور ہندو مسلم اختلافات، فرقہ وارانہ تعصبات اور دنیا پر حکومت کرنے کے خواب نے ایسی جنگجویانہ نفسیات کو جنم دیا جس نے معاشرے میں موجود شدت پسند عناصر کے حق میں جلتی پر تیل کا کام کیا۔

اس پر مستزاد یہ کہ ہمارے حکمران اور ریاست گزشتہ کئی دہائیوں سے بہت جارحانہ رہے ہیں۔ اس تعلیمی پالیسی کے زیرِ اثر تیار ہونے والی نسل کو وہ بطور ایندھن استعمال کرتے رہے۔ یوں پاکستان میں شدت پسندی کی فصل پکتی رہی اور اس سے وابستہ عناصر کو بڑھاوا ملتا رہا۔ تنگ نظری، اپنے مذہبی حریفوں سے نفرت، عدم برداشت اور جارحیت ہمارے مزاج کا حصہ بنتی رہی اور ہم دنیا سے کٹتے کٹتے اپنے خول میں بند ہوتے چلے گئے۔

آج بھی پاکستان کا نظامِ تعلیم ایسا کوئی کردار ادا کرنے میں ناکام ہے جس سے عوام میں قرار واقعی سماجی شعور اور انسانی رویے فروغ پا سکیں اور ہم تعصبات کی تنہائی سے نکل کر عالمگیر معاشرے کا باوقار حصہ بن سکیں۔ آج بھی ہمارا نصابِ تعلیم رواداری، انسان دوستی اور مسلّمہ انسانی اقدار پر خاموش ہے اور ہم خطے میں امن، سلامتی اور بھائی چارے کی فضا قائم کرنے میں بری طرح ناکام ہیں۔ آج بھی ہمارے نصاب کے مضامین اپنی کمزوریوں کو زیر بحث لانے کے بجائے غیر ضروری مواد سے اٹے پڑے ہیں۔

ان سے زیادہ ضروری تھا کہ ہمارے قومی نصابِ تعلیم میں نوجوانوں کو یہ پڑھایا جاتا کہ ہم ایک علیحدہ مملکت قائم کرنے کے باوجود غربت، جہالت مافیاز کے راج، وڈیرہ شاہی اور جاگیردارانہ نظام کو ختم کیوں نہ کرسکے، ہم آج جدید دنیا کے ساتھ چلنے کے قومی تقاضے کیسے پورے کرسکتے ہیں، ترقی یافتہ معاشروں کی جدید صنعت و حرفت، سائنسی علوم اور مہارتیں اپنے ہاں کیسے منتقل کی جاسکتی ہیں، دیگر ممالک نے سماجی انصاف کے حصول اور معاشی ناہمواریوں کو ختم کرنے کے لیے کیا کیا تجربات کیے ہیں اور ہم ان سے کیسے استفادہ کرسکتے ہیں۔

لیکن ہم اپنے نصاب تعلیم کے ذریعے تنگ نظری کا بیج بوتے رہے، جس کا نتیجہ بہرحال تنگ نظری کی فصل کی صورت میں ہی نکلنا تھا۔ آج ہمارا ایسا کوئی قومی ادارہ نہیں بچا جہاں شدت پسندی کسی نہ کسی شکل میں موجود نہ ہو۔ اب شدت پسندی کا یہ زہر ہمارے قومی وجود کی رگ رگ میں سرایت کرچکا ہے۔

پاکستانی تاریخ کا انتہائی درد انگیز باب وہ ہے جب پاکستانی سوسائٹی اوندھے منہ شدت پسندی کے اندھے کنوئیں میں جا گری۔ دو عالمی طاقتوں نے اپنی جنگ لڑنے کے لیے اس خطے کا انتخاب کیا اور دو ہاتھیوں کی لڑائی میں اس خطے کی برداشت اور روادارانہ روایات کو کچل کے رکھ دیا گیا۔

یہ جنگ یوں تو روس اور امریکا کی تھی، مگر اس جنگ میں ہم سانجھے دار بن گئے اور ہمارے معاشرے میں موجود شدت پسندی کی تمام نمائندہ قوتیں جنرل ضیاء الحق کی قیادت میں متحد ہوگئیں۔ یوں پورا ملک شدت پسندوں کی آماجگاہ بن کر رہ گیا۔

مقامی اور بین الاقوامی شدت پسندی کے پاکستان میں اس اجتماع نے مذہبی رواداری کے تابوت میں آخری کیل ٹھونک کر اسے دفنا دیا۔ اس جنگ کا بیس کیمپ پاکستان ٹھراا اور سی آئی اے جیسے بدنام زمانہ ادارے دہشت گردی کی عالمی منڈی سے ''مجاہدین'' بھرتی کر کے افغانستان میں روس کے خلاف فراہم کرتے رہے۔

اس عمل میں دنیا بھر کی شدت پسند قوتوں نے دامے، درمے، سخنے مدد فراہم کی۔ امریکا اور اس کے کچھ حلیف ممالک اس میں بہت سرگرم رہے۔ فاٹا اور آزاد قبائل جن کو شاید اسی مقصد کے لیے ابھی تک انگریز دور کے قوانین کے تحت چلا جا رہا تھا، وہاں تربیتی مراکز تیار کیے گئے۔ یوں پاکستان میں شدت پسندی کا لاوا پکتا رہا جو بعد ازاں آتش فشاں کی صورت میں پھٹ پڑا۔

اس سارے تناظر میں ایک مخصوص ذہنیت نے انتہا پسند اور شدت پسند طبقے کو اپنے مقاصد کے حصول میں معاون سمجھتے ہوئے اہم ریاستی اور سیکیورٹی اداروں تک رسائی فراہم کر کے انہیں اپنا شریکِ کار بنا لیا۔ شدت پسندوں اور ان سے ہمدردی رکھنے والوں پر ایوانوں کے دروازے وا ہونے کے نتیجے میں انتظامیہ، فوج، سول اور سیاسی جماعتوں سمیت ملک کے اہم ترین اداروں میں مذہبی شدت پسند اور انتہا پسند در آئے۔

یہاں وہی کھیل کھیلا گیا جس کا ہم پہلے ذکر کر چکے ہیں۔ ایک عالمی طاقت نے دوسری عالمی طاقت کے خلاف لڑنے کو مقدس فریضے کا نام دیا۔ کسی کو بندوق تھمانا تو آسان ہے لیکن اس سے واپس لینا بہت مشکل ہوتا ہے۔ لرننگ (Learning) کے مقابلے میں ان لرننگ (Unlearning) زیادہ مشکل ہے، اور جب کوئی بیانیہ عقیدے کا حصہ بنا دیا جائے تو اسے یادداشتوں سے محو کروانا اور بھی زیادہ مشکل ہوجاتا ہے کیونکہ وہ فرد اسے اپنی زندگی کے اہم ترین مقصد اور مشن کے طور پر اپنا چکا ہوتا ہے۔

جب آپ کسی سے اس کا مقصد اور عقیدہ چھیننے کی کوشش کریں گے تو وہ آپ سے لڑے گا خواہ اسے آپ کے یا اپنے دشمن ہی سے کیوں نہ مدد لینی پڑے، اور ایسی صورتحال میں معاشرے میں موجود ہمدرد عناصر ان دیکھے انداز میں ان کی پشت پر آجاتے ہیں۔ یہی کچھ پاکستان میں ہوا کہ شدت پسند عناصر کو معاشرے کی مختلف پرتوں سے تعاون حاصل ہوتا رہا اور قومی عمارت کی بنیادوں میں شدت پسندی کا پانی رستے رستے ہمارے قومی وجود کی بنیادیں کھوکھلی ہو گئیں۔

پاکستان میں شدت پسندی کے جڑ پکڑنے کی ایک بڑی وجہ اہلِ علم اور دانشوروں کی طرف سے بوجوہ اس کو فکری اور نظریاتی سطح پر بطور ایک علمی اور فکری چیلنج کے قبول نہ کرنا بھی ہے کیونکہ افغان جنگ کے دوران ایسے دانشوروں کی حوصلہ شکنی کی گئی جنہوں نے پاکستان کی مقتدرہ کی پالیسی کو تنقید کا نشانہ بنایا۔

اس کے برعکس ایےق رسائل و جرائد جاری ہونے لگے جن کے سرورق کلاشنکوف، مشین گنوں اور جدید اسلحے کی تصویروں سے مزین ہوتے تھے۔

ان رسالوں اور جرائد میں چھپنے والے مواد نے سسپنس میں جاسوسی رسائل کو بھی پیچھے چھوڑ دیا۔

آج کے بعض مقبول کالم نگار جو آج دہشت گردی کے خلاف بڑی بڑی باتیں کرتے نہیں تھکتے، وہ بھی لنگر لنگوٹ کر اس ریاستی پالیسی کی حمایت کر رہے تھے ۔

شدت پسندی کی اس فضا کو پرواں چڑھانے اور پاکستانی معاشرے کو انتہا پسندی کے جہنم میں دھکیلنے میں سیاسی جماعتوں نے بھی اپنا پورا پورا حصہ ڈالا، جو آج دہشتگردی کے خلاف سب سے بڑا کریڈٹ لینے کے لیے تیار رہتی ہیں۔

شدت پسند عناصر کے خلاف کارروائی میں ہماری سیاسی اور نام نہاد جمہوری حکومتیں ہمیشہ ہی تذبذب کا شکار رہی ہیں کیونکہ کسی نہ کسی طرح ان کے مفادات اس طبقے سے جڑے ہوئے ہوتے ہیں، مثلاً ووٹ بینک اور اپنی مقبولیت برقرار رکھنا وغیرہ وغیرہ۔

پاکستان میں شدت پسندی کے یہ بنیادی اسباب ہیں۔ اس کے بعد معاشرے میں شدت پسندی کی بقاء اور استحکام کے لیے بہت سے اسباب اپنے اثرات و نتائج کے ذریعے شدت پسندی کو سازگار ماحول فراہم کرتے رہتے ہیں۔ ایسے اسباب کی ویسے ہی ہمارے جیسے معاشروں میں کبھی کمی نہیں رہی، مثلاً ناانصافی، معاشی محرومیاں، بے روزگاری، طبقاتی معاشرہ، طاقت کا جبر، ذات پات کا نظام، مذہبی گروہ بندی کا وجود، دہشت گردوں کے خلاف عدالتوں سے مؤثر فیصلوں کا نہ آنا وغیرہ وغیرہ۔

ضرورت آج اس امر کی ہے کہ ہمیں شدت پسندی کو ختم کرنے کی ہر کوشش کا ساتھ دینا چاہیے تاکہ ہم عالمگیر معاشرے کا حصہ بن سکیں اور جدید دنیا کے شانہ بشانہ چل سکیں۔ بدقسمتی سے اس شدت پسندی کے باعث مسلمان معاشرے عام انسانی معاشروں سے پیچھے جاتے جا رہے ہیں، اس تنہائی کے سبب ہماری اپنی اصل شناخت گم ہوتی چلی جارہی ہے۔

مگر یہ راستہ اتنا آسان نہیں اور اس کے لیے سب سے پہلے تو چند مشکل فیصلے کرنے ہوں گے۔ ان فیصلوں میں نصاب کو بہتر بنانا ، قومی بیانیے کی تبدیلی، اور خارجہ پالیسی کو مکمل طور پر ملکی و قومی مفاد کے زیرِ تحت تعمیر کرنا ہے۔ اگر یہ سب کچھ کیا جائے، تو ہی شدت پسندوں کے خلاف جاری جنگ جیتی جا سکتی ہے۔ ورنہ یہ صرف دہشتگردی کے خلاف جنگ ہے، اور جب تک سماج میں گہرائیوں تک موجود منفی ذہنیت کو جڑ سے نہیں اکھاڑا جاتا، تب تک منفی ذہنیت کے ساتھ ہتھیار اٹھائے ہوئے چند ہزار افراد کو شکست مکمل فتح نہیں کہلا سکتی

Source: http://www.dawnnews.tv/news/1027653/07oct2015-pakistan-mein-shiddat-pasandi-ke-awamil-o-asbab-muhammad-abbas-shad-bm-me

Related:

http://takfiritaliban.blogspot.com

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~  ~ ~ ~  ~

Humanity, Religion, Culture, Science, Peace

 A Project of 
Peace Forum Network
Books, Articles, Blogs, Magazines,  Videos, Social Media
Overall 2 Million visits/hits

http://JustOneGod.blogspot.com
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Enter the General

Zameen Jaagti hai By ATIF ASLAM ORIGINAL VIDEO

As Atif Aslam croons these lines in his signature lilting style, the accompanying video tells an impressive story of public service and bravery. Captain Ahmed, the fictional protagonist in the video, saves a young woman from mugging in a market and then gets killed in a military operation he leads to rescue children and women from the captivity of what resembles Taliban fighters. The woman happens to be a journalist who, then, puts together the story of Ahmed’s exploits through interviews with his colleagues and his diary entries. Next day, her story is carried on the front page of a newspaper with a very laudatory headline — “Real Heroes of Pakistan”.

'Enter the General' By Muhammad Badar Alam, herald.dawn.com 
To read more, subscribe to Herald in print.

In the song, released on April 30, 2013 on what the Pakistan Army calls Youm-e-Shuhada (Martyrs’ Day), the various elements of a public relations juggernaut come together: catchy music, military-style pyrotechnics and a good human interest narrative. It gives a message that the soldiers would want everyone to get: Military officials are out there to help and protect people – both in war and peace – and their story must be highlighted by the mainstream media.

Also read: Hail to the Chief !

Major General Asim Bajwa, director general of the Inter-Services Public Relations (ISPR), effectively the media wing of the army, explains why there is a dire need for stream-lining the flow of military-related information to the media — mainly newspapers and television channels. “It was June 8, 2014, and Karachi’s Jinnah International Airport had come under a terrorist attack,” he says in a recent conversation. “When I switched on the television, I saw reporters and cameramen standing almost inside the airport. There was no one to stop them from entering into a sensitive zone where fighting was going on; no one to tell them that their reporting could endanger lives,” he adds. “I called a senior official in the federal information ministry; he told me to get in touch with the Sindh government, since the incident was happening in Karachi. I talked to officials in the Sindh government and they said the airport came under the Civil Aviation Authority, which is not a provincial department. I talked to someone at the Civil Aviation Authority and they said their job was limited to ensuring that all flights landed and departed on time.”

Flabbergasted, Bajwa decided to take control. “I informed the chief [of the army staff] and requested him to move the station commander in Karachi to the airport. The station commander immediately shifted all the journalists out of the airport. At the same time, I assured all the news directors at television channels and all the editors at newspapers that they will be getting minute-by-minute coverage.” From then onwards, he would tweet directly to newsrooms across Pakistan, if and when there were any developments at the airport. “When I visited the United States later, they were amazed at how efficiently I had handled the flow of information during that attack,” he says with a hint of pride.

Journalists agree the old ways of reporting about the army and the ISPR have lost relevance. In one major departure from the past, postings, promotions and transfer of senior military officials are no longer a subject of speculation, as was the case in the past. Many journalists bitterly remember how they were mistreated, sometimes even badly manhandled, by intelligence officials in the 1990s only for reporting on high-level staff shuffles in the army. Reports about such shuffles now reach newsrooms as an official press release, mostly delivered as an email or a tweet.

When the need arises for ‘inspiring’ individual journalists into writing something favourable for the military – much like in the song mentioned above – the ISPR prefers to do it from a distance. It has engaged private consultants – some of them journalists-turned-analysts – to coordinate with reporters and desk editors. Managers at some consultancy firms working with the ISPR share with the Herald how they are in touch with a large number of journalists ready to oblige as far as “filing a pro-army” story is concerned.

The military leadership complained to the federal ministry of information technology and PTA about the fake social media accounts created under the names of military and intelligence chiefs.

Whereas in the old system, the ISPR officials had to personally liaise directly with reporters and news editors, now personal access is granted only to a select few — mostly talk-show hosts, opinion writers and editors. Obviously, most journalists are unhappy with the new military-devised hierarchy within their ranks.

A senior ISPR official, however, denies that journalists have been relegated to a secondary status in his department’s protocol. “Our whole system is based on information-sharing with the media and journalists,” he says.

That is true — to the extent that the ISPR does share information with the media. The way that sharing is done and with whom, however, has changed almost entirely – new mediums such as social media forums and websites are being frequently employed and the generation of non-news products, such as songs, plays, documentaries and films, has gathered an unprecedented momentum. The dissemination of most of this digitally produced content bypasses journalists and reaches its targeted audiences directly.

To be historically correct, the ISPR has been generating and disseminating much more than just military-related news reports since its early days after Independence. It always had a publication department, which has published a monthly journal, Hilal, since 2007 (it started as a weekly in 1951 and sometimes in 1952 was turned into a daily newspaper, mostly consumed by the military’s own personnel; it returned to a weekly frequency in 1964). The ISPR has been producing documentary films since the 1960s and releasing songs and other motivational and promotional materials for decades.

Yet, in recent years, the volume of the ISPR’s media production has increased dramatically. In the last five years alone, the ISPR has produced numerous documentaries, a large number of inspirational songs and three major drama serials — besides working on a feature-length film. Bajwa’s Twitter account has 1.31 million followers (and counting) — larger than the daily circulation of the three largest newspapers in the country combined.

Mubashir Zaidi, a senior reporter who hosts a talk show at Dawn News television channel, believes that interacting with newspapers and television news channels has “now become a small fraction of [the ISPR’s] overall job description”.

Yeh Bande Mitti Ke Bande - Mustafa Zaidi:
This song plays as a backdrop to a video showing a slick military operation. A battery of young army officers in combat fatigues charges a militant hideout where a large number of civilians are being held hostage. Equipped with earphones, mouthpieces, night-vision goggles and sniper rifles; wearing protective helmets and kneecaps, these officers look like the epitome of a 21st century Pakistani solider — armed with latest technology and yet selflessly fearless. They carry out an immaculate rescue operation — killing and capturing all the kidnappers and freeing all their hostages unharmed without so much as receiving a minor injury.

The brand development of these postmodern soldiers can no longer be possible without the communication tools that are compatible with their image. And the ISPR is employing those tools to the maximum. The moment a development takes place related to the armed forces — for instance, a military operation in tribal areas, casualties in a clash with terrorists, meetings of the senior military officials among themselves or with other government functionaries and foreign visitors, or even the introduction of some new military toy for the use of the boys in uniform – officials at the ISPR become active through their Facebook and Twitter accounts. News reports are disseminated, photographs are relayed and links for multimedia content are shared instantly.

The number of official social media accounts representing the army is rather small. Bajwa, the ISPR chief, operates his own Twitter and Facebook accounts; his department, too, has one Twitter and Facebook account each; and there is a third Facebook account that represents the Pakistan Army but is operated by the ISPR.

And then, there are some more.

The problem with this ever-changing narrative is that, well, it changes too frequently and too fast – from religion, patriotism and
militarism to religious and ethnic diversity and back, in the space of a single song or a play or a movie.

Immediately following General Raheel Sharif’s appointment as the Chief of the Army Staff (COAS) on November 29, 2013, at least 37 Facebook accounts appeared under his name. Many other Facebook accounts appeared simultaneously under the name of Lieutenant General Rizwan Akhtar, director general of the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI).

Apart from these and numerous other social media accounts opened under the names of prominent military personalities and officials, there are countless accounts and pages on Facebook, Twitter and Youtube which actively promote content close to the ideology and the activities of the military. Most of these sites and accounts were instrumental in promoting Raheel Sharif’s credentials as a soldiers’ soldier, right after he became the COAS. This was initially done through a meme showing his ageing mother and asking who would be a nobler woman than her in Pakistan — her husband (Rana Muhammad Sharif), brother (Raja Aziz Bhatti) and the eldest son (Shabbir Sharif) were all majors in the army, the latter two having won the Nishan-e-Haider, the highest military award for gallantry.

In another extremely popular Facebook post, Raheel Sharif is shown walking down a corridor flanked by the Karachi corps commander and the director general of the Sindh Rangers. Their images are juxtaposed to the image of three lions walking side by side. “Never before the life of terrorists have been made so difficult in Karachi,” reads its caption. Many other posts show COAS Raheel Sharif as the acme of efficiency, professionalism and altruistic commitment to the welfare of the people of Pakistan. Through his unwavering will, the readers are told, he is going to rid the country of the twin menaces of terrorism and corruption.

“Of course, General Raheel is a major blessing of Allah for Pakistan. Let us thank Allah for this blessing,” reads another post that carries his photo in full military regalia. In one post, he is shown in the foreground of a scale used as a symbol of justice. The top of the post carries his name, the bottom mentions military courts. “The age of justice is about to dawn. Injustice can never be perennial,” it proclaims.

Sometimes Pakistan’s virtual world seems to be walking in lockstep with Raheel Sharif. If he is meeting soldiers stationed in the tribal areas, his digital supporters rush to portray him as a military commander par excellence who cannot care less about his own safety to be with his men. When he receives the families of the victims of terrorism or the children and widows of the slain military officials at his office in Rawalpindi, the focus shifts to highlighting his compassion as a man of the people. His official tours to places such as Balochistan and Karachi are portrayed as the arrival of a dauntless commander on the scene of a war that nobody was able to win before him. And his parleys with foreign dignitaries are projected as the manifestations of his unbendable patriotism and unparalleled statesmanship.

Other serving and retired military personalities also get a huge amount of favourable traction in cyberspace courtesy websites and social media accounts that actively root for anything linked to the military. When Hameed Gul, a former head of the ISI, died last month, the Internet was abuzz with his exploits, projecting him as a hero who had singlehandedly defeated the Soviet Union. An army general who has sent his son to the front line in the war against terror sometimes earns a similar spate of digital praise. One of the favourite subjects of these cyber warriors is promoting the heroic deeds of young army officers who have laid down their lives while fighting against terrorists. Sometimes, their spartan lives are shown in contrast to those of “luxury-loving, inept and corrupt politicians”.

Apart from promoting the military leadership, some of these accounts are active in generating a single-track hype over important issues of national security and foreign policy. The military is shown to be fighting an unequal war against a foreign enemy which has evil designs against Pakistan and is willing to employ any financial, intellectual, ideological, cultural and military means to destroy our country. Some Pakistanis are then presented as internal enemies, collaborating and conniving with the external enemies of the state. These mostly include politicians, media persons, writers, actors and the odd religious leader.

A Karachi-based social media expert, who wants to remain anonymous due to the sensitivity of the subject, says such content is mostly generated by social media accounts and websites set up under obscure identities. PakArmyChannel, for instance, is present both on Youtube and Facebook. It reveals little about the identity of its operators except that they may be based in Germany. The channel carries hundreds of videos with pro-army songs, news reports and other multimedia materials related to the military. And it is just one of innumerable accounts with obscure identity. “There is no way we can know the origin of these accounts. These cannot be traced back to any real person or organisation,” says the expert.

For its part, the ISPR has made it clear that it has nothing to do with such obscure accounts and sites. “We have got nothing to do with any kind of negative or malicious campaign against anybody,” says a senior ISPR official when asked about the contents of such Internet-based forums and platforms.

We are told, on the other hand, that the military leadership complained to the federal ministry of information technology and the Pakistan Telecommunications Authority (PTA) in December 2014 about the fake social media accounts created under the names of military and intelligence chiefs. The PTA is said to have taken up the matter with Facebook management, leading to deletion of many of those accounts – albeit temporarily.

Regardless of whether the ISPR and the military own those websites and accounts or not, more often than not, they project views meant for massaging the military’s institutional ego and the personal egos of its leaders. At many popular forums, both on the Internet and within the social media, discussion is raging whether Raheel Sharif should get an extension in his tenure as the COAS; if yes (for most discussants that is the only and obvious answer) then by how much should his service be extended beyond November 2016 when he is set to retire — for three more years, for five years, or for life. A web page that favours a five-year extension had attracted 33,000 likes by the end of the last month.

This prompts the anonymous social media expert to make a controversial observation. “Such campaigns are calculated moves.” 

Brigadier (retd) A R Siddiqi, who has worked in the ISPR for more than 20 years before retiring as its head in 1973, argues that “such image-building” often “happens under official direction and with the full weight of the state authority.” In the preface to his 1996 book, The Military in Pakistan: Image and Reality, he writes about the problems with such exercises. “The image may not always be unreal or untrue, but it hardly ever reveals the entire picture. In fact, the need for the image may arise only when reality by itself is not good, substantial or weighty enough for projection in its true form and colour.”

Elsewhere in the book, Siddiqi offers a historical parallel to make his point. When Major General Muhammad Azam Khan imposed martial law in Lahore in March 1953, in the wake of anti-Ahmedi violence, army officers “were treated and projected as popular heroes and leaders”. He writes: “Everyday news photographs showed them presiding over public functions, addressing people, touring city areas for on-the-spot surveys, opening new markets and public buildings.”

In an earlier chapter, Siddiqi explains that, as a result of sustained image-building exercises, the “military emerges as a super social elite answerable to none except its own commanders, at various levels, and ultimately to the commander-in-chief (chief of the staff)”. The development of such personal allegiance may trigger events that lead to the overthrow of the civilian authority and the start of a military dictatorship. “In turn, the service chief, depending on his personal ambition, exploits the loyalty of all ranks to seize political power and become a dictator … Sustained image-building may both precede and follow military coup d’etat,” warns Siddiqi.

Main Aisi Qaum Se Hoon:
Released in the immediate aftermath of a terrorist attack on an army-run school in Peshawar late last year, these highly evocative and emotional lines are complemented by a video that shows children rushing to schools to take up the pen and the book even when faced by naked threats of terrorism. The same auditorium where the terrorists had killed close to 150 individuals is brimful of students towards the end of the song; the school principal appears at the climax and sums up the mood of the whole song in a defiant one-liner: “Welcome back to school.”

The song was a major official effort to create a narrative that could paint the terrorists who had committed the brutal school attack as the well-deserved targets of national hatred and retribution. Its lyrics did not focus on religious themes; children’s innocence, love for the motherland, courage in the face of adversity, determination to carry on with education irrespective of the threats and optimism about the future were considered enough to mobilise public opinion against an enemy difficult to portray as an unmitigated evil.

Soon enough, the propagandists on the other side found the flaws in this approach and launched their own version of the song exploiting those flaws to the hilt. They showed children reading religious texts and painted the generals of the Pakistan Army as getting money from the imperial powers to kill the true followers of Islam. The song ended on an ominous note: a man’s voice says, “Welcome back to school” and the sound of bullets being fired follows after a brief pause.

In an Islamic republic that has a self-professed objective to preserve and promote the Islamic way of life, the Taliban song posed a serious challenge to the ideologues of the state: who owns the religious and national narrative and, if there are to be multiple national narratives, which one should enjoy preference and precedence?

An ISPR documentary, The Glorious Resolve, released in 2011, pointed to the same problem. It showed the slogan of Allah-o-Akbar at the end of a speech by a Taliban commander also marking the opening of the next scene in which Pakistani soldiers were offering prayers. Fighting an ideological battle with an enemy which shared that very ideology, and indeed claimed to be representing it better than a ‘Westernised’ military and political elite, seemed almost impossible.

It was much easier to confront the narrative of an external enemy — such as a hostile neighbour, an overweening superpower or a foreign intelligence agency. Confronted with a religion-inspired extremist militancy in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and the tribal areas, an ethnic nationalist insurgency in Balochistan and a deadly mix of crime, corruption and politics in Karachi, the manufacturers and guardians of the national narrative have been highly confused. They have been finding it extremely difficult to bind all these strands together in a single narrative thread that could help them galvanise the nation behind those fighting against the forces harming and hurting Pakistan.

In the recent past, the makers and builders of the national image kept their efforts abreast with the military’s objectives and challenges. Intent on promoting an insurgency in the Indian-administered Kashmir, the ISPR collaborated with Pakistan Television Corporation (PTV) in the late 1980s and the early 1990s and came up with plays such as Mujahid that highlighted how and why it was justified for Pakistanis to fight against India in Kashmir. Ujalay Se Pehle was another army-inspired play in those decades, revolving around military operations against dacoits and bandits in Sindh’s river belt areas.

In the 1990s, a new type of television serial was also produced to show young military officers much like any other youngster of the era — fun-loving, romantic and upwardly mobile. Both Sunehray Din (aired in 1990) and Alpha Bravo Charlie (broadcast in 1998) were attempts at giving the military an urban ethos that it lacked until then. The reason: the military was engaged in street battles with an urban youth militancy in Karachi.

Since the early 2000s, however, the narrative has been struggling to catch up with the situation at the battlefront. A religion-inspired militia of mainly madrasa students and teachers also proved quite adept at using the same religious, patriotic and militaristic symbols that the military has been using — the Taliban had the advantage of portraying themselves as the underdog fighting against infidel imperialists and their local lackeys. The military’s media managers were perplexed over how to counter their Islam-soaked propaganda.

In 2008-2009, they unsuccessfully tried to play the victim card. They produced small docudramas about the heirs of the victims of terrorism and tried to convince newsroom leaders in newspapers and television channels that highlighting their stories was a national and moral duty in the fight against religious extremism. There were few takers, if any at all.


The military’s public image was at its lowest then. Having spent almost a decade under General (retd) Pervez Musharraf’s rule, people had seen the military leadership become part of all kinds of convenient political arrangements to ensure its stay in power. On the military front, the flip-flop combination of battle-by-day and peace-accords-by-night with the Taliban had led some people to believe that the two sides were not really interested in fighting it out against each other. Others believed the military had become so accustomed to the luxuries of politics and power that it was no longer the famed fighting machine it once was known to be.

When, finally, the military started an operation clean-up in Swat in 2009, its media managers thought that broadcasting stories of heroism and sacrifice was the best way to mobilise popular support for the campaign. This led to the production of drama serial Khuda Zameen Se Gaya Nahin, first aired on PTV and Hum TV in 2009-2010.

The objective of the serial, say officials closely associated with its production, was to counter the Taliban’s narrative. Its producers were told “we have to erase that narrative from the minds of the public”. Written by Asghar Nadeem Syed and directed by Kashif Nisar, Khuda Zameen Se Gaya Nahin was “rich on the feelings of nationalism, sacrifice, valour and fighting spirit.” It promised, according to its Facebook page, “to give hope to our audience and unite the nation.”

But it was only after the Taliban were defeated in Swat that the military regained some of its lost grip on the public’s imagination. Soon, it was back on the offensive — narrative-wise, that is. Even during the Swat operation, the military and its brand managers had found that an easy way to mobilise public opinion against the Taliban was to highlight their inhuman brutalities and excesses, and portray them as agents of the enemy.

The Glorious Resolve, for instance, showed the Taliban commander in Waziristan talking to someone on the phone negotiating the price – in dollars, take the hint – for killing Pakistani soldiers. The foreign connection was, similarly, emphasised when, in 2011, the ISPR launched another drama series based on the operation in Swat, Faseel-e-Jaan Se Aagey.

It was only after the Taliban were defeated in Swat that the military regained some of its lost grip on the public’s imagination. Soon it was back on the offensive — narrative-wise, that is.

A self-professed “tribute to the immortals by the mortals”, Faseel-e-Jaan Se Aagey dramatised the true stories of army officials, civilians administrators and ordinary citizens who had stood up to the Taliban. Produced by a private company, Communication Research Strategies (CRS), many of its episodes were written by Zafar Meraj, a senior television writer. “I received 10 stories from the ISPR,” he tells the Herald about the process of finalising which stories to show.

One of the stories televised under the serial was Ma’arka-e-Chuprial. Among other things, it showed a Taliban commander inviting a mysterious person from across the border to operate the anti-aircraft gun that the Taliban had acquired. His identity as a Hindu was revealed at the end of the drama when, faced with certain death, he told the Taliban to cremate him instead of burying him.

In 2012, the ISPR collaborated with veteran actor-director Naeem Tahir to produce a serial called Samjhauta Express. As its name suggests, it was meant to “dispel the impression created by the first flash of the media news that Pakistan was behind the blasts [that had hit Samjhauta Express plying between India and Pakistan],” says Tahir in a conversation with the Herald. Its other objective, he adds, was to underscore the “genesis of terrorism and militancy in Indian society.” The serial was clearly a counter-offensive aimed at convincing the Pakistani public that their country was a target of India-inspired conspiracies.

The military’s media managers were thrilled when Waar, a feature film starring the popular film actor Shaan, opened to packed cinema halls in 2013. It could easily have been an ISPR production: it had an aggressively patriotic theme, with a former army officer as its protagonist and a seductress as an Indian agent who sponsors and promotes terrorists in Pakistan. Many in the media, indeed, alleged the funding for the film had come from the military but its makers vehemently denied that. They, however, acknowledged that they had produced The Glorious Resolve, almost simultaneously with Waar, for and with financial support from the ISPR.

Major General (retd) Athar Abbas, who headed the ISPR before Bajwa, tells the Herald that there was a proposal during his tenure to employ film as a propaganda tool. But, he says, the General Headquarters (GHQ) refused to allocate money when the ISPR asked for it in 2012.

After Raheel Sharif took over as the army chief in 2013, the ISPR presented the proposal to him again and he instantly approved it. Bajwa and his team approached Dr Hassan Waqas Rana, the writer of Waar, to produce the movie with a self-explanatory title Yalghaar (meaning ‘attack’ in English). The story of the film revolves around a commando operation to retrieve the Peochar Valley in Swat from the Taliban.

Rana tells the Herald that the film’s financing and making were both difficult propositions but the ISPR’s cooperation has helped him on both counts. “I could not have undertaken this 3.5 million-dollar project without the ISPR’s help,” he says.

While a large part of this massive amount of money required for the film is being provided by a private media house running a number of television channels, the ISPR has spent additional money to provide logistical support to the production team. “It would have been impossible for me to make this movie”, reiterates Rana, “without logistics, transportation and authenticity of script”, all ensured by the military.

Bajwa is eagerly awaiting the release of the film. In a tweet in July this year, he celebrated the release of Yalghaar’s first trailer and hailed the movie as a harbinger of the revival of the Pakistani film industry. More than that, he will be looking forward to its impact on the battle for hearts and minds that his department is so desperately trying to win.


This impression leads people to expect from the military everything that they cannot otherwise get or have.

Yet, as Amir Raza, a young writer who has a penned a television drama for the ISPR, points out, the military does not need to get directly involved in producing plays or films to create and promote a certain narrative. “Pakistani movie production houses are doing the ISPR’s job without the ISPR even having to spend a penny on it,” he says.

Raza cites the example of Border, a 2002 movie directed and produced by Iqbal Kashmiri, in which Shaan is shown as a patriotic solider who returns from a border post to his village to find cable television and Indian media products polluting the morals of the villagers. While a court in the movie hears an elopement case, he makes a dramatic entry into the courtroom and asks the judge to punish the cable network operators responsible for facilitating an Indian cultural invasion. “When I watched this movie in a cinema in Lahore,” says Raza, “I saw people clapping throughout the courtroom scene”.

Even in other mediums, the ISPR’s direct intervention is not really required. Most news bulletins and newspaper front pages in any case cover the statements and activities of the top military leadership, especially the COAS. On an almost daily basis, his engagements in different military and non-military tasks – ranging from visiting foreign capitals to inaugurating a charity cricket match and from chairing law and order meetings in Karachi to conferring with senior government leaders over the security situation in the country – are shown and reported about very prominently. When the military high command is not in the top headlines, military themes are.

In newspapers for August 31, 2015 alone, two front-page news reports were about India’s overt and covert aggression towards Pakistan. In one of them, Defence Minister Khawaja Asif warned India of unprecedented retaliation if it continued firing on Pakistani villagers across the international border in Punjab. In the other, Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif and COAS Raheel Sharif were reported to have provided the visiting American National Security Advisor Susan Rice the proof of Indian involvement in fomenting violence in Pakistan.

The same day’s daily Jang, the largest selling Urdu-language newspaper in Pakistan, carried a half-page advert on page two, celebrating the bravery of the soldiers who had lost their lives in different battles and had won the Nishan-e-Haider. The newspaper, and its sister publication in English, The News, had run similar ads throughout the month of August.

On Independence Day, many newspapers in Karachi, Lahore and Islamabad carried a full-page ad by the son of a late army captain. It showed COAS Raheel Sharif in his military uniform dominating the page — separated by a green swoosh above his cap, a sentence in Urdu read:“Only you are the pride of Pakistan”. The total cost of the ad could easily run into millions of rupees but there is no knowing who actually has financed it.

As the 50th anniversary of the September 1965 war with India drew closer, the ISPR launched another ad campaign, highlighting different aspects of that war and hailing it as a “victory”. A build-up for this, in fact, had started on August 14, when the military and paramilitary forces had arranged elaborate celebrations in different parts of the country. The very ostensible focus of these celebrations was on the military’s role in curtailing terrorism and ensuring law and order in such chaotic places as Karachi and Balochistan. The streets in many cities were lined with as many Pakistani flags as banners and posters praising the top military leadership, COAS Raheel Sharif and ISI chief Akhtar in particular.

An occasional poster could be seen eulogising Bajwa for his media management and clear-as-crystal statements on issues of national importance. After all, the ISPR under him has released five national songs this August alone — more than what all the public and private television channels and other media combined could manage.


Hum Ishq Watan Se Karte Hain:
A celebration of Pakistan’s popular culture – from truck art to chai stalls and from dhol playing to Sheedi dance – the accompanying video for this song shows Pakistan in all its ethnic, cultural and religious diversity. The lyrics are deceptively free of any ideological quotient. Religion, militarism, hyper and wounded nationalism are surprisingly missing from both the lyrics and the video. It is, indeed, an undiluted celebration of a young vibrant Pakistan, enjoying its mosaic identity.

The fact that the song was released two days before Independence Day on August 14, 2015, that it is written by a serving army officer, Major Imran Raza, and that it is produced by the ISPR is a clear reflection of the desire among the military’s media managers to stay ahead of the national narrative in any possible way they can. If the nation needs religion and patriotism for mobilisation, there should be an ISPR song to do just that; if people should be convinced that Pakistan’s troubles are the creation of the outsiders, there has to be either a film or a play to hit that message home; and if people across ethnic and religious divides seem to enjoy their common popular culture, then, of course, it becomes imperative to celebrate and promote that popular culture.

The problem with this ever-changing narrative is that, well, it changes too frequently and too fast – from religion, patriotism and militarism to religious and ethnic diversity and back, in the space of a single song.

In the second week of December 2012, two senior army officers – one from the ISPR and another from the ISI – sat in a meeting of the Central Board of Film Censors in Islamabad. The meeting was called to discuss whether Pakistan should allow the import of Indian films. “Not even a single scene or dialogue against the national interest could be allowed to show,” is how the army officers are said to have set the criterion for importing and showing of an Indian movie. A senior official, who was also among the discussants, tells the Herald that the principle was so sternly put forward that nobody dared asked them as to what constituted national interest and who had the mandate, and the wisdom, to define it.

Only a month prior to the meeting, the Pakistani government had banned the screening of Ek Tha Tiger, starring Salman Khan, because it showed a female ISI operative eloping with an Indian intelligence official. Since then, a number of Indian films have been banned because they are seen to include content repugnant to Pakistan’s national interests, the latest being Phantom which has kicked up an uproar among the Pakistani nationalist circles for portraying Pakistan and its intelligence agencies in a negative light. The movie has been banned by the Lahore High Court on a petition filed by Hafiz Saeed, an anti-India religious leader considered close to the security and intelligence agencies.

In the past, even Pakistani films had been banned for hurting the “national interest”. The most famous instance of this is the banning of Punjabi language film Maula Jatt, released in 1979. Senior film critic Ejaz Gul tells the Herald the reason behind banning the movie was its “anti-establishment” message. Such a message was deemed politically dangerous in the immediate aftermath of the military overthrow of Zuklfikar Ali Bhutto’s government. “Officials from the ISPR and the interior ministry were members of the censor committee that banned the movie,” says Gul. It was only after the producer obtained a stay order from the Lahore High Court against the ban that the movie could be shown in cinemas in Punjab and Sindh.

The desire and the need to control and calibrate the media products as per the dictates of “national interest” is even more evident in the films and plays being directly or indirectly sponsored by the military’s own media managers. Senior staffers at the CRS, which has produced a number of ISPR-supported television plays, say both the idea and story of each play they have produced came from the ISPR.

Even though the scripts are written by professional scriptwriters selected and hired by the CRS, their output is vetted, approved – and even changed if required – by the ISPR before shooting for the show starts. Once the shooting is complete, the draft play is again vetted by a board constituted by the ISPR and comprising officials from the army’s GHQ, Military Intelligence and the ISI. Their recommendations are included – and that is a must — before the final product is released for broadcast.

There can be nothing accidental or inadvertent about the carefully selected and strictly analysed scripts of these plays. All references, narratives, characters and messages are intended to be there for a certain reason. That raises some serious questions about those parts of the plays that purportedly make social and political commentary.

Consider the case of an ISPR produced drama serial, Jaan Hatheli Par. Its main objective is to highlight the military’s fight against a nationalist insurgency in Balochistan. When one of its lead characters riles against tribal chieftains in the play’s official promo, he is certainly making much more than just a statement against ethnic terrorism: “The tribal chief who cannot provide clean drinking water to his people has no use as a tribal chief,” he shouts angrily.


In the recent past, the makers and builders of the national image have kept their efforts abreast with the military’s objectives and challenges.

Similarly, in the play titled Ma’arka-e-Chuprial people complain to a soldier about the loot and plunder Pakistan has been subjected to. He advises them to fulfil their own responsibilities as he and his comrades in arms have been doing. It is because of the army’s alertness that millions of people in the country sleep peacefully every night, he tells them. The contrast is obvious. While others are looting and plundering the country and not doing their jobs properly, the military is the only institution selflessly performing its arduous duties so that people can have peaceful lives.

Apart from these oblique attempts at setting the national social and political agenda, the ISPR has recently tried doing so directly, too. It has produced a six-and-half-minutes-long collection of SOTs (sounds on tape) by leading Pakistanis which emphasise Jinnah’s vision of a liberal and progressive Pakistan — with Zia Mohyeddin’s narration in the background. “One man, one vision, one nation” is the title of the clip meant as a tribute to Jinnah, the man, the lawyer, the leader, the statesman. It stresses his political ideals of equality, justice and the rule of law.

Is providing all this political and ideological education to the nation within the ISPR’s mandate?

Ideally speaking, a national narrative has to come from the representative institutions and the civil society, says Syed Talat Hussain, a leading television talk-show host and political analyst. “Narrative-building should be the job of the parliament. To be more specific, it should be the job of the opposition and the government within the parliament,” he says.
[If concerned institutions fail to perform their real job, some one else will do to fill the vacuum, why blame Army?]

Saeed Shafqat, a Lahore-based analyst and teacher of politics who has written extensively on civil-military relations in Pakistan, argues that the civilian institutions and civilian government are completely out of the picture as far as the setting of national narrative is concerned. This, he says, is mainly because of their ineptitutde and incompetence. “It seems they have nothing to say and nothing to do,” he adds. “The only institution that seems to be working is the army.”


This impression leads people to expect from the military everything that they cannot otherwise get or have. And many of them, therefore, are always happy to appeal to the military to take over power and put the country back on track. “Perfectly respectable people would come to me … and say, ‘You can save the situation’”, wrote Pakistan’s first military ruler General Ayub Khan in his book Friends Not Masters while describing the reasons for his takeover of the government in 1958. In an eerily similar way, portraits of COAS Raheel Sharif adorned huge billboards in all major cities in the run-up to Defence Day on September 6, 2015, carrying such loaded texts as, “Step up Raheel Sharif, we are with you”.

In contrast, Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif’s images were singularly missing from the public sphere. Even in television news bulletins and front pages of the newspapers, the coverage of the prime minister looked like an after-thought, an appendix to the main offerings of the day.

Shafqat, however, argues the civilian sloth could be the result of some hidden deal between the civilian authorities and the military establishment. There could be an understanding between the government and the army, he says; under this decidedly lopsided agreement, the army says “we will do everything” and the civilians agree and say “we will not do anything”.

Is the military then trying to steal all the limelight for itself, relegating the civilian institutions to a secondary status in a state apparatus where they look more like observers than active participants in the nation’s political life? Brian Cloughley, a defence expert who has studied South Asia for 30 years and authored two books, including A History of the Pakistan Army: War and Insurrections, does not agree. He believes the military in Pakistan has a “legitimate need” to project a countrywide narrative due to the situation it finds itself in while fighting the war against terrorism.

A senior ISPR official defends his department’s forays in setting the national narrative in fields which are not strictly the military’s domain in a similar fashion. For him, the country’s image and its security are one and the same thing. “When we talk about security, when we talk about defense, we have to take into account the overall image of the country,” he says in a background interview. “We, therefore, have to work to build a better image of the country.”

Siddiqi warns that such sweeping mandate to set everything right gives the military leadership a wrong type of confidence. “The generals, by and large, [become] too sure of their ability always to put right the mess created by the politicians,” he observes in the preface to his book, The Military in Pakistan: Image and Reality.


Mein Zindabad Hoon - Asrar:
When Asrar launches into his part-Sufi, part-classical, part-pop rhapsody to sing this song released on August 14, 2015, the images of soldiers clad in different types of postmodern battle fatigues and in different fighting postures quickly change in an impressive montage on the screen. The viewer can be forgiven for being confused: Is it the country that the song is talking about or the military?

Siddiqi calls this mixing up of the country with the military as “prussianism”. “[The military’s] image grows apace, and presently reaches a point of predominance and power where it becomes an object of mass reverence or fear. A sort of prussianism is born to produce an army with a nation in place of a nation with an army. The national identity and interest is progressively subordinated to the growing power of the military image,” he writes in the preface to The Military in Pakistan: Image and Reality.

Commenting on a precursor to Asrar’s song, Siddiqi says in the book: “The face of the solider in his battle kit became the face of the nation and its most popular image.”
Original source: http://herald.dawn.com/news/1153264

The mixing of the soldier with the nation could result in extremely naïve notions of military superiority and invincibility, especially in a state heavily dependent on foreign aid and technology to even equip its armed forces. Siddiqi quotes a funny, if not tragically self-delusional, incident.

Amid the popular euphoria and public ecstasy over the 1965 war, foreign journalists were invited to survey the opinion of the citizens of Lahore to gauge how motivated people were as the war raged on the nearby border with India. “A foreigner asked a Pakistani what implements of war Pakistan manufactured — tanks, guns, aeroplanes?,” Siddiqi narrates. “‘Nothing’ the Pakistani answered innocently. ‘What the hell do you produce then in this country to fight a war?’ ‘Taranas’ (songs), answered the Pakistani, just as naturally as before.” 

Originally published in Herald's September 2015 issue. To read more, subscribe to Herald in print.
Also read: 
Hail to the Chief !
Does the military still control Pakistan?
COMMENTS:
It appears as if  projecting the Pak Army which is shedding the blood for the safety and security  of people of Pakistan is a crime. Why it is assumed to be at the cost of civil political leadership? Who stops the civil leadership to share the celebrated events like Eid with the soldiers fighting for their safety? But instead they choose to go abroad. PM was abroad on both Eids, while Army Chief was with soldiers. Instead using 95 of space for criticising Army, the author could have advised the political leadership to abandon  their hunger for $ and stay here to at least show their solidarity with troops. 

Why foreign media [BBC and Economist (Hail to the Chief !)] write about popularity of Army? Its not solely due to ISPR media campaign but the real good  job done and being done by Pak Army under leadership of General Raheel Sharif. Don't get jealous ... "Hasid na ker, kaam ker" 

Corruption: http://pakistan-posts.blogspot.com/p/corruption.html

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~  ~ ~ ~  ~

Humanity, Religion, Culture, Science, Peace

 A Project of 
Peace Forum Network
Books, Articles, Blogs, Magazines,  Videos, Social Media
Overall 2 Million visits/hits

http://JustOneGod.blogspot.com
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~