Liberation of soul from sense perception

January 4, 2009 at 6:40 am · Filed under Political Commentary ·Tagged , ,

Darwin attributes the development of human species to the natural process of evolution. Darwin does not question the existence of God but simply tries to explain the formation of living organisms on earth. He does not sufficiently address the development of superior intellect in human species while all other lacked far behind. In many of its verses Qoran narrates that God created man from a combination of clay, water and fire. But the most significant aspect of creation is the empowerment of this new creature with the knowledge of the universe. It is then that God asked all the angels to bow down to his new creation. The angels responded that they have been praising the God without question then why they should bow down to a lesser being. God instructed its creation to recite what it has been taught. It is also mentioned in this story that Iblis or Satan refused to bow down objecting that Men is made of clay while he is made of fire which is purer than clay.

There is a lot of symbolism in this story of creation and many points to ponder upon. First that God presented the Men in its physical form with all its physiological limitations. Second God gave knowledge to Men that imply that all of us are born with it but its hidden deep down in our soul. One purpose of life for us could be to strive throughout our lives to unlock that wisdom already encoded into our beings. There are two ways this hidden knowledge can be activated. One is through sense perceptions and the other reflection within the soul.

One innate problem in our sensory organs is that they register an effect rather than a cause. To understand the cause would require a separate inquiry. For instance touch tells us that the effect of iron is solid but the string theory suggests that iron is nothing but a string of energy. Adopting a scientific method that could rely on sensory perception to define a phenomenon could only produce a faulty or limited reality. Ironically the measurement instruments designed for scientific exploration are modeled on the principles of sensory perception. This gulf between the perception and the absolute reality is probably the reason for side effects in medicine and environmental damage from machines. In the spiritual context the five senses combined can be defined as nafs. If a soul relies heavily on its nafs for interpretation of absolute reality then the probability of its contamination with wrong knowledge is very high. This might be the reason that all man of wisdom including prophets relied heavily on meditation to find one true God.

This limitation of sensory perception also dictates that they can not be solely used for unlocking the hidden knowledge endowed upon us. Let us take an example to illustrate this point. Assume that a person does not possess the five sensory perceptions i.e. sight, sound, taste, touch and smell. How will this person interpret the existence of universe around him? In the absence of senses the only other alternative available to this person is reflection or thought. Through this thought he creates a universe which is hard to image for people like us who rely heavily on their senses. The reality of heaven is probably that the soul will not be required to rely on senses to perceive pleasure, desire and knowledge.

The other question is whether the purpose of this knowledge was passive or active. In the passive state it is not required by the possessor to utilize the knowledge. It seems from the teachings of Qoran that the purpose was active which means that men are required to seek knowledge and then act upon it. If the scope of the action is defined by the knowledge acquired then it is important that the methods used for this acquisition are free of faults and limitation. Reliance on sensory perception alone will tend to produce actions that will be contaminated as the knowledge acquired through them are limited and far from reality.

No one knows for sure the true path to the absolute reality but if God built it inside the soul then the most probable place to find it is in ones own self. Knowing true nature of the soul is a quest on which many has embarked before us whether it was Mansur al Haj who declared “I am God” or meditations of Mohammad PBUH who went to a dark cave (Ghar-e-Hira) for 15 years to find the truth. This path is never easy to take but it is the only path that can provide salvation for the soul and please the creator God.

Leave a Comment

After math of Mumbai attacks?

December 20, 2008 at 3:44 am · Filed under Political Commentary ·Tagged , , , ,

Foreign policy is an imperfect social science with as many views and opinions as there are writers. But formulation of different scenarios helps in devising strategies for the long term and channeling the public opinion to enable policy makers to take actions. Any foreign policy expert that does not include the history and culture of the region can not come up with a realistic scenario. Today’s volatile diplomatic environment is an aftermath of the events of 911 that destroyed the balance of power achieved after Second World War. US policy makers decided to use that incident to ignore long established state relationships and create a new world order with itself at the center as the sole super power. The first victim of this approach was United Nations which was made totally irrelevant when USA made it clear that they will take unilateral action if the world body did not agree to its wishes. The second victim was its relationship with Europe which realized that they can not tag along with US foreign policy if they want to protect their interest. Since then they have been making efforts to create their own foreign policy institution. The third victim was South Asia which experienced deployment of foreign forces by NATO and USA without any resistance offered by regional powers India, Russia and China.

During this time US decided that India can play a significant role as an equal partner in the region. A look at India’s foreign policy since independence shows that India has relied on major powers to gain influence in the region. After its independence from British rule in 1947, the ruling Congress party with its socialist leader Jawahar Lal Nehru aligned itself with communist USSR. The break-up of USSR in early 1990s forced India to rethink its strategy to either become a power in its own right or align itself with USA or China. China, a neighboring country, was a difficult option considering their conflicting interest in access to energy resources, regional dominance and economic competition. USA on the other hand was a better option because it had a large Indian immigrant community that could influence the policy makers; it was market for outsourcing of Indian skilled labor and it was located far off so would always rely on the local power for the protection of its interest.

The key question to ask in this equation is where the interest of these two countries meets to form a common strategy for the region. The answer probably is that India feels insecure from the presence of a nuclear Pakistan at its borders. The writings of their intellectuals suggest they would prefer Pakistan divided into smaller pieces that would rely on India for their economic and security needs. USA on the hand is nervous about a Muslim nuclear power that could be a threat to its strongest ally Israel as well as the possibility of Islamic extremist laying their hands on the nuclear weapons. USA also needs a foothold in the region to keep its check on rising Russia and China.

If this theory of Indo-USA interest in the division of Pakistan is considered to be real then how would the region look like? One scenario was published by the New York Times in which Federally Administered Tribal Area (FATA) region of Pakistan was merged with Afghanistan, Balochistan was converted into an independent state including some parts of Iran as well and the remaining provinces of Punjab & Sindh forming the new Pakistan.

India seems to forget the 1000 year history of the region. Enlargement of Afhganistan would mean that there will be a nation of 65 million on its borders that has been the source of attacks on its land throughout history. The establishment of 750 years of Mughal rule emerged from the lands of Afghanistan. Afghanistan with no natural, agricultural and industrial resources of its own would be a nation of starving, battle hardened and ambitious people. These Aghfan’s will resume their attacks on rich lands of India for wealth and establishment of another Muslim rule on India. Recreation of this force would be much more dangerous for India to contain than the multiethnic country of the present Pakistan.

The other unknown in this emerging scenario is the apparent complacency of China and Russia who have substantial strategic interest in the region. It is surprising to note that Russia makes a big diplomatic noise whenever America signs any kind of security deal with a nation in Europe but it remains mute when US announces a large force deployment in South Asia.. The presence of US army is a direct threat to the interest of China and Russia but they have not made any diplomatic efforts to object to it.

There could be many explanations for Russia and China’s complacent behavior. One could be that the lesson learned by Russia in Afghanistan was that it is a place where an army dies from thousand small wounds inflicted by the people who have a long history of gorilla fights. It is also possible that China and Russia both feels US involvement in Afghanistan strains its capability to respond to aggression anywhere else. This scenario was played out recently during Russo-Georgian conflict when US could not provide any support to its ally Georgia despite past promises. The third explanation could be that both Russia and China understands that the real source of American influence is their economic might and consumer markets. A major military operation would require substantial financial commitment from USA which could further undermine the already ailing economy. This will result in higher fiscal deficit that has been traditionally funded by Japan, China and other Asian countries.

This will create an opportunity for these two powers to promote a new multi polar world order. The incidents in India points to the continuing emerging scenario where Russia and China could be playing a silent hand to punish India for its alignment with USA and strike at its economy to prevent it to become a regional power. It will be naïve to believe that India’s close association with USA through nuclear, security and economic deals is unnoticed in Moscow and Beijing.

The balance between the nations can not be achieved until all members of the global community decide that only diplomatic channels will be used to resolved conflicts. Presence of foreign forces in South Asia will continue to result in insurgencies, terrorist attacks and extremism. Russia and China should come forward to pressure USA to rely on international platforms to solve their homeland security concerns. USA should focus more on improving the lives of their people by creating new job opportunities and improving their economic depth. India should understand that living in peace with its neighbors is the only long term solution for a stable economy and unity of the country. Muslim countries should liberalize their societies to be more open with equal opportunity for all and freedom of speech without apprehension.

Leave a Comment

Congratulations President Elect Barack Obama

November 8, 2008 at 5:29 pm · Filed under Political Commentary ·Tagged , , , ,

On behalf of Pakistani-American community, I would like to congratulate you, Senator Obama, on your historic win in the recent presidential elections. The results of your elections were eagerly awaited around the world but particularly in the down trodden parts of Africa and Asia. In the last two years these regions have been hit hard by many natural and man made disasters. But the most severe crisis is the steep rise in world food prices which is the outcome of a deep sense of insecurity felt by the global community. This insecurity arise from the intense wars fought in Middle East and South East Asia. This sense of insecurity forces people to buy more food than they would normally need creating a pressure on supplies of food. A mere 10% rise in food demand could adversely affect the supply demand situation that result in higher prices making it out of reach for the poor. These poor people hope that your election would bring the much needed peace and prosperity around the world.

Pakistan is a country founded on ideals of equal rights, democracy and equal opportunity for all. Founder of Pakistan Quaid-e-Azam Mohammad Ali Jinnah was convinced that the non-cooperation movement promoted by Mohatama Gandhi could produce acts of violence. He was proven right when riots broke out in many parts of united India and the British government refused to allow Gandhi to travel around the country. Quaid-e-Azam believed that independence could be achieved through a constitutional movement founded on democratic principles. Creation of Pakistan is the living proof of the power of the ballot box rather than struggle on the street. These are the same principles on which foundation of United States was laid by its founding fathers almost 220 years ago.

Since its independence people of Pakistan have felt a natural affinity towards USA because of shared values. Pakistan was member of CENTO and SEATO promoted by USA in 1950s. In the US cold war with USSR, Pakistan risked its non-aligned status by allowing U-2 spy plane flights from its air bases in Peshawar. Pakistan was also instrumental in opening the doors of diplomacy between communist China and USA.

People of Pakistan have always looked towards USA to provide an inspiration and guidance in the creation of solid democratic institutions in the country. But unfortunately US policy makers throughout last 60 years have preferred autocratic military rulers over democratically elected leaders. In the last 8 years US has given over US$ 9 billion dollars of military aid to Pakistan while over 40% of Pakistani nation live under the poverty line. These shinning armors can not win the fight against extremism unless forces of moderation are strengthened through education, sustainable economic development and strengthening social order.

President Obama your desire to speak to unfriendly nations should be matched with a long term commitment to your friends in the region. Your comments to send bombs chasing extremism will not be as productive as your funds creating schools in the tribal region. Loss of innocent lives of children and women are more important to preserve. A person losing a family member to an unmanned drone becomes a potential recruit for the extremist.

We pray for your success and hope that you will listen to the history which has proven time and again that wars don’t win hearts. You should also remember the message of peace brought to the world by Jesus Christ who sacrificed his own life for the sake of humanity.

Leave a Comment

What should be Pakistan’s foreign policy?

November 8, 2008 at 5:28 pm · Filed under Political Commentary ·Tagged , ,

One of the important challenges facing the government is devising a foreign policy that meets its short, near and long term objectives. But the first step in devising a policy is to review current priorities and the national interest of Pakistan. The edifice of a foreign policy is built on three pillars economic interest, security interest and geopolitical power struggle.

Pakistan is an agrarian economy with over 67% of its population engaged in farming. The three largest foreign currency contributors to the exchequer are textiles, leather and rice export. The predominance of agriculture should be good news for the country as the rising population of the world is increasing demand for food products. Pakistan’s proximity to resource rich but sterile Middle East and sub Saharan Africa could provide important export markets. One foreign policy approach could be to sign bilateral agreements with oil rich Middle Eastern countries to provide food security in return for energy security.

US predominance as the provider of economic aid and market for Pakistani merchandize can be reduced by exploring new markets in European Union, South America and Africa. Pakistan can explore manufacturing of light engineering products to diversify its export item list. All foreign agreements should incorporate transfer of technology to attain greater self reliance. For economic independence the budget deficits and balance of payments can only be maintained if productivity of the labor and value addition is achieved at a faster pace.

It is fool hardy to think that a country can remain safe among hostile neighbors on all sides. India is a growing economy with large population to feed which brings with it social issues to occupy its leaders. India is widely believed around the world as one of the potential candidate to play a role in the fast emerging multi-polar world. Pakistan is not willing to accept India’s dominance and continually projects itself as an alternative in the region. India expects Pakistan to accept its leadership and become an ally as other countries in South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC) has done.

In the historical perspective, Pakistani leaders should realize that during the struggle for independence All India Congress understood that a large Muslim minority will be difficult to manage as is evident from the frequent Hindu/Muslim riots. They made it impossible for Muslim League leaders to expect a fair share in the Indian Union as proposed by them, which ultimately resulted in the creation of a separate state Pakistan. In this perspective, Indian leaders would prefer a denuclearized Pakistan probably broken into smaller manageable pieces. This divergent view among the leaders of the two countries makes it difficult to form some kind of a shared alliance. India’s continued violation of human rights in Kashmir and their growing influence in Afghanistan creates further tensions. It is in the interest of Pakistan that its leaders take a long term view on India and form a strategy to reduce tension between the two countries. The first step in such direction could be increased trade on the path to form a free trade agreement while at the same time promoting cultural ties.

Afghanistan has traditionally sided with India on all international forums before and after Russian invasion. Even Taliban’s were eager to maintain good relations with India despite the support given to them by Pakistan. The foundation of this behavior lay in disputed Durand line and slogans of Pashtoonistan among Pakistani tribesman time and again. Afghanistan has always been eager to become part of a conspiracy against Pakistan with or without NATO presence. Pakistan can not afford to have less than friendly countries on both its Eastern and Western borders. A regional trade pact between Pakistan, Afghanistan and Central Asian states will open up new trade opportunities for all parties. Land locked central Asia will get access to warm waters while Pakistan and Afghanistan can earn millions in transit trade.

Pakistan has repeatedly rebuked Iran in regional affairs by former President Musharraf. One such step was calling a regional conference without inviting Iran which ultimately resulted in total failure. Pakistan is ideally suited to play the role of a bridge between US and Iran to break the stalemate in relations between these two countries. We have played the same role in 1971 by arranging a secret visit of Henry Kissinger to meet with Chinese leadership. European Union, Russia and China might have economic interest with Iran but Pakistan shares a common border, religion and culture. Pakistan has enjoyed good relations with Iran over decades specially signing an RCD agreement in early 1970s along with Turkey. Iran, which has a border with Afghanistan, can be a partner with Pakistan to control the instability in the region through security and economic agreements.

Pakistan and China enjoy a long history of mutual friendship since its independence. The lynch pin of this friendship has been containment of India. But in last 10 years the dynamics of the region has changed since India and China resolved their border disputes and formed a trade relationship that is growing in leaps and bounds. For Pakistan to assume that China will help them at the cost of losing relationship with India will be a novice idea. China would like to help Pakistan economically and in security terms but that can only happen if Pakistan assumes the stance of neutrality it maintained during the cold war years. The trade agreements signed for the development of Sandak copper gold project and Gawadar port are significant. China can be a substantial export market for Pakistani food, textile and light engineering products. Pakistan can also be a transit point for Chinese industrial regions that are closer to Gawadar than Shanghai. The two countries can also cooperate on the production of defense products. China can also provide a security cover that Pakistan needs against its hostile eastern and western neighbors.

Russia is not USSR so old taboos about cold temperature between the two countries should be reconsidered. Russia is increasingly asserting its influence in the region which it lost after the break up of USSR in early 1990s. This means that central Asian states with their large natural resources will feel the pressure to align their interests with Russia. An agreement between Russia and Central Asian states to provide security for energy transit through Afghanistan and Pakistan would be a welcome idea. Pakistan should re-establish its long lost ties with Russia and find mutual grounds for cooperation especially in the areas of mining, oil & gas and hydal power. Russia on the other hand will get an ally in the region after losing their old friend India to US through their nuclear deal.

In the foreseeable future US will continue to be a close ally of Pakistan but not at all costs. All US intellectuals in their television interview maintain that US wants Pakistan to be a strong country while at the same time they support military dictators and provide military aid instead of economic uplift. US-Pakistan relations should change from cash based to broad based by incorporating cooperation in science, technology, education, culture and foreign direct investment. The countries have natural affinity to be close but the foundations are not broad enough to make the relationship grow.

Pakistan faces serious challenges but the most important challenge is to regain its friends in the neighborhood and maintain sovereignty in the face of growing western pressure to fight terrorism.

Leave a Comment

What should be the US foreign policy in the new administration?

September 22, 2008 at 7:26 am · Filed under Political Commentary ·Tagged , , , , ,

New US president will be elected on November 4th when American voters will elect their 44th president for next four years. Other than economic recession the challenge faced by the new administration will be realignment of foreign policy with war in Iraq at the center of the debate. US foreign policy is largely driven by three main interests. First, US believe that ideals of human liberty and freedom should be promoted around the world in the form of democracy and free markets. Second, US want to maintain the economic life style of its people by ensuring access to markets, supply of energy and natural resources from around the world. Third, US believe that the security of its people and homeland is important by engaging in preemptive actions around the world including non-state organizations like Al Qaida.

Ideals of human liberty and freedom are not political objectives but rather values that are promoted by all religions including Christianity and Islam. This means that these noble ideas are the basic premise of creation and makes it a mainstay of human society. This could mean that societies around the world should be eager to participate and join hands with USA. But this can only be achieved if US is able to attain the respect of a true leader without strong bias in its own favor or favorites. Accepting Palestinian right of return and abandoning the support of autocratic rulers would be two important steps in this direction. Similarly, bringing change within a society requires patience and perseverance rather than adoption quick fix through military intervention to introduce abrupt change by removing an autocratic regime at the cost of innocent lives as collateral damage. It would be wise for US to adopt the policy of engagement and negotiation to promote ideals and resolve issues. This will earn it the respect it deserves as bastion of liberty, freedom and equal rights.

The exponential rise of oil prices and its negative impact on the US society has driven the point home that energy security is extremely important for US economy. Sending militaries in Middle East to ensure steady supply of oil can not solve this issue in the long run especially when most of these countries are run by autocratic rulers. China and India with close proximity to Middle Eastern countries are as eager to out bid USA for this resource. On the other hand Russia is playing this card to its advantage by exerting influence on energy rich central Asian states. US should realize that they can solve their energy problem by adjusting their lives giving up on gas guzzling SUVs for smaller cars while at the same time making investment in research and development of alternate greener energy source.

The most important element of US foreign policy for the last eight years has been the security of American lives and property from the terrorist threats. US have natural barriers in the form of Atlantic and Pacific Ocean to prevent any direct military threat to its home land. To further augment this natural barrier US formed North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) with its Western allies. This cold war era edifice could also become a new flash point with reemerging Russia if US is too eager to allow Soviet states of Ukraine and Georgia to become members. Russia which still feels insecure after its break up in 1991 needs a neutral buffer between its bounders and Western Europe with which it fought many wars over centuries. The expansion of NATO should be reconsidered by the new administration if they would want to avoid another cold war with Russia. This NATO expansion would force Russia to reinvigorate their long forgotten WARSAW pact with some new friends and allies.

The other important corner stone of the new US administration should be to reestablish credibility of international platforms like United Nations to resolve issues. It has become apparent that ignoring UN to pressure Saddam regime was a foreign policy mistake resulting in tremendous loss of goodwill, treasure and lives. US should redouble its efforts to help reform UN so that it becomes an effective organization in solving international issues. One such step would be reconstitution of the Security Council, to represent the new world realities, by awarding an observer status to Organization of Islamic Conference (OIC) and adding more permanent members to the council.

US also need to redefine its meaning of a terrorist by removing the emphasis that somehow Islamic faith has religious support for inhuman acts. A faith can not attain a global acceptance if it is not driven by truth and human values. A terrorist is a criminal with no real understanding of Islam or any other faith. The recent monk movement in Burma shows that it is not the religion but political injustice that forces peaceful people to take an extreme position. Redefining terrorist will not only help US regain its lost respect in the Muslim world but will also inspire governments around the world to cooperate in this fight without fearing a backlash from masses. By labeling terrorists as Islamic terrorist implicate the whole Muslim world as suspects until proven guilty. Any bomb going off anywhere in the world is immediately labeled as Islamic terrorism without carefully considering the evidence. This negative perception of a large innocent majority creates a moral dilemma for people which ultimately results in sympathizing with an underdog that is looking for a popular support. A terrorist in most situations is a product of poor governance and bad politics.

Resolution of Arab-Israel conflict, Kashmir struggle, Iraq war and removal of NATO forces from Afghanistan would help improve the US image and contribute towards world peace. US strategy to send military forces around the world creates an impression of imperialism that turns the popular opinion against them. US is probably the only country with military presence around the world including Germany, Korea, Japan, Iraq, Oman, Bahrain, Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan. Use of soft power through economic, cultural and political relations would go a long way in ensuring security for US people.

If the prime reason for a governments existence is to provide a good life for its community then US government is failing miserably. The economic meltdown can be partly blamed on foreign policy. It is now apparent that US could have avoided invasion of Iraq as it took away valuable resources from the local economy. It will be a mistake for the new president to change the label of the war from Iraq to Afghanistan. Instead objectives of eradicating terrorist could be achieved by supporting local governments to fight through indigenous efforts.

US is the last best hope for humanity to achieve peace. The stakes are too high for the world. We can all hope that sensibility will overcome emotion and a new approach will be adopted. Comedian Jon Stewart said it all when he commented on one of his programs that America will always have 19 people, referring to 911 hijackers, who want to commit harm but in eradicating those 19 it can not have an unfavorable opinion among the rest of the world.

Comments (2)

Rise of Russia on the corpse of United Nations?

September 7, 2008 at 4:56 pm · Filed under Political Commentary ·Tagged , , ,

A league of nations was created after First World War to prevent violent power struggles between imperial Western powers that controlled large part of the world as colonies. The objectives of the organization included prevention of war and improving quality of life. Within fifteen years of its creation the league failed miserably to prevent Second World War in the face of a Nazi regime that considered its national interest to acquire more landmass more important than the eminent loss of human lives. When the war ended in 1945, at the US President Franklin D Roosevelt initiated efforts to convert the league of nation into a more global United Nations organization with membership offered to most countries of the world. Regardless of the sincerity of intent of the founding members the organization was raised on a faulty foundation when it created dual set of membership for its Security Council by awarding permanent status to five countries. Ironically three of the five permanent members were colonial powers namely France, Britain, Russia, China and USA. These permanent members have veto powers to reject any proposal brought to the council for consideration regardless even if it has majority vote from the twelve council members.

Since its inception in 1945 UN has proved to be totally ineffective in preventing major world conflicts including Israel/Arab war, India/Pakistan Kashmir dispute, US involvement in Vietnam war, Russian invasion of Afghanistan, US invasion of Iraq, Russian engagement in Georgia and deteriorating situation in Afghanistan after the deployment of NATO forces in response to 911. Permanent members have voted on UN resolutions whenever it suited their national interest and rejected UN altogether when it was not possible to get a resolution in their favor. US brought its case against Iraq before UN to seek cooperation and authorize war to replace the autocratic ruler Saddam. To make its case for the war US demonstrated the proofs of existence of weapons of mass destruction (WMD). US made it clear to UN that they will engage in a war with or without the approval of the world body which was mandated to prevent such wars. The members of the general assembly and Security Council expressed serious concerns about existence of WMD and refrained from extending any cooperation. Former General Secretary Kofi Annan tried to prevent Iraq war by emphasizing importance of diplomatic isolation for Saddam and by supporting forces of opposition in Iraq, but he was ridiculed and embroiled in corruption charges which later proved baseless. He has been redeemed when US accepted their failure to locate any WMD in Iraq and accepting failure of the military operations in the aftermath of fall of Baghdad. After 4 years of war it is now clear that if US had listened to the world we might still have to deal with an Iraqi dictator but the destruction of one of the oldest civilization might have been prevented with tremendous loss of human lives as collateral damage.

US invasion of Iraq have provided diplomatic precedence for other nations to ignore UN in persuasion of their national interest without brining them to the floor of Security Council. Recent Russian actions in Georgia are a clear indication that in the new world order UN is totally ineffective. We have two options available to reinstate the lost credibility of this organization. The first option is to change the structure of the Security Council to remove the special powers of permanent members. The second option is more radical which is to disband the organization into smaller regional entities with cooperation agreements in place between them.

The changing dynamics of the world has made it clear that we are moving clearly towards a multi-polar world in which US, Russia, China, Brazil, India and Iran will play a significant role. These competing world powers will need a client organization to exercise their powers on the satellites. US already have NATO in place to use their influence on Western European countries. In the light of Georgian situation and US security agreement with Poland, Russia can reinstate its long forgotten WARSAW pact with a new name allowing membership to former USSR states. China will use ASEAN and other regional arrangements to create its sphere of influence while India will rely on SAARC as their client. Middle Eastern and Muslim countries can restructure the Organization of Islamic Conference (OIC) to create a platform for negotiating their concerns. Brazil can change the scope of trade agreement Mercosur among South American nations to include foreign policy with strong backing from Argentina. African Union with strong leadership from South Africa and support from Ethopia can form their own block.

Emergence of these regional organizations can make it possible for the world to negotiate peace. Globalization of politics has proved to be wrong as regional interests based on culture, language, religion and borders are stronger. It is not possible for a North American leader to fully understand and appreciate the concerns of South Americans as Brazil can do. Each organization with a strong economic and military sponsor can make it possible to negotiate fair agreements backed by a genuine interest to implement it. It is always better to have a cold war with fine balance rather than an actual war with tremendous loss of innocent lives as collateral damage. The events of 911 have disturbed the world balance of power and it is very important to achieve a new balance which might be possible when the whole world is engaged through organizations promoting their regional interests.

United Nations is costing global humanity close to US$5billion every year without much progress to show. UN has not bee able to prevent famine in Ethiopia or genocide in Rawanda & Darfur by acting too slowly because of the competing interest of permanent members. We need to all come together and form a new world order that gives much weight to regional interest rather than making the world hostage to the veto powers of five countries.

Comments (4)

President Zardari: what it means for Pakistan?

August 26, 2008 at 4:30 am · Filed under Political Commentary, pakistan ·Tagged , , ,

The year 2008 is proving to be an eventful year for Pakistan, first in February the nation elected new parliament through an election that are largely considered free and fair. The election produced a fractured parliament which needs cooperation among various parties to ensure continuity of democracy. The election also forced President Musharraf to resign and give way to a new president. PPP then decided to nominate Mr. Zardari as their candidate for the office of the President of Pakistan. Is it a surprise pick or it was on the horizon throughout this political turmoil? The answer lies in the history of Mr. Zardari and the organizational structure of PPP. Before Benazir Bhutto decided to return to Pakistan, Wall Street Journal ran a full page story on Asif Ali Zardari, when he came to US immediately after his release from prison. The story outlined that Mr. Zardari feels it is the birth right of Bhutto family to rule Pakistan and no other option is acceptable to him. It is no secret to any of his associates that he savors power and likes to accumulate it at any expense. All political parties in Pakistan, including PPP, are ran by influential individuals rather than an elaborate democratic process where leaders of the party are elected through a process of voting by members. It was in the interest of these leaders to accept Zardari as heir to Benazir Bhutto instead of allowing other senior leaders to compete for the chairmanship of the party.

The symbolism used in PPP press conferences gives insight into the thinking of the party leadership. When Senator Raza Rabbani announced the candidature of Mr. Zardari the back drop was pictures of Mr. Bilawal Zardari in middle while Mohtarma Benazir and Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto on each side of it. It means that anyone sitting in front of these pictures are accepting the patronage of Bhutto family to announce a key decision without much regard to the country and its ideals. It is only a matter of time when the formalities are completed and Mr. Zardari becomes the next President of Pakistan. What will be the role of power brokers in the country on this election?

During his 2 years stay in USA, Mr. Zardari held many meetings with US policy makers and leaders, brokered by current ambassador to USA Mr. Haqqani, to form his power base in the US. The concerned showed by US was the tarnished reputation of Mr. Zardari and its effect on US image if they supported his accession. But the turn of events in Pakistan after the assassination of Benazir, Mr. Zardari’s successful hold on PPP leadership and dwindling popularity of Musharraf forced US to look for a new partner. Mr. Zardari has to balance between the competing interest of US, military and Saudi Arabia. It will be unlikely that he stopped cooperating in US war on terror in the foreseeable future. All he can hope for is that Democratic Presidential Nominee Barak Obama wins elections and changes his war policy to include dialogue.The military on the other hand may not welcome this appointment and undermine the rule of PPP. Saudi Arabia historically supports Muslim Leaque, JUI(F) and military rulers in Pakistan. This means that they could play a positive role by forcing PPP to have a working relationship with PML (N) to complete the term of this assembly. PML (N) can not afford to jeopardize their relationship with Saudi Arabia by opposing them to an extreme position.

What would be the effect of President Zardari on Pakistani nation? The supreme court judges will be restored after oath of presidents office  as it will ensure that Chief Justice Iftikhar Mohammad Chaudhry will not be able to indict Mr. Zardari as he will have presidential immunity during his presidential term while repeal of NRO can be used to twist arms of his opponents. The separatist movements in Balochistan and NWFP will continue to gain strength as PPP does not have the moral authority to solve these issues as Mr. Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto was the first political leader to authorize military operation in Balochistan. PPP has never been popular as a business friendly party. Their socialist views are quite apparent from the current budget presented by them. The economy of Pakistan will continue to rely on oil subsidies from Saudi Arabia and economic aid from USA.

Considering Mr. Zardari’s desire to have absolute powers the repeal of 58 (2) (b) will also not happen under his watch as it will take away an important element of his presidential powers. Zardari is guardian of a party founded by Chairman Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto who himself was a creation of a military ruler General Ayub Khan when he was appointed as a foreign minister in the marshal law administration. Mr. Zardari fully understands the political cycles in Pakistan which oscillates between civil and military rulers. It is the civilian cycle and if he does not gain control of the presidency it will be difficult to create foundation for the next generation of Bhutto family, Bilawal Bhutto Zardari. We can hope that he will remember that without Pakistan there can not be a parliament or a prime minister.

To resolve Pakistan’s problems, she needs a leader of Mohammad Ali Jinnah’s stature. Unfortunately the current leadership of all major political parties come with a baggage which cracks their resolve to stand up to vested interest in the country. The people of Pakistan have demonstrated time and again that they want to live together as one nation but the decisions of their leaders have worked against these feelings of unity. It seems that the leaders want to have their will imposed on the nation without much regard for the integrity of Pakistan. We need fresh ideas and a new start from our leadership at all levels. Unless we are ready to change, the situation will not improve and we will not gain dignity in the comity of nations.

Leave a Comment

Fair and free elections

January 7, 2008 at 2:27 am · Filed under Political Commentary, pakistan ·Tagged , , , , , ,

Pakistan is slowly albeit grudgingly moving towards general elections on February 18th, 2008. All major parties are agreeing to participate in the elections while maintaining a pressure on the government by demanding fair and free elections. The statements made by PPP, PML (N) and PML (Q) leadership suggest that elections will not achieve the end which is a stable political environment in which people can feel safe and advance their lives. PPP co-chairman Asif Ali Zardari has gone so far as claim that the next government will be formed by PPP by winning the elections. PML (N) Chairman Main Nawaz Sharrif has repeatedly demonstrated that they will not accept the leadership of President Pervez Musharraf. PML (Q) leadership is targeting their opposition with negative campaign slogans which are reciprocated by Asif Ali Zardari. In this environment the nation is nervously watching the next phase of their volatile life while the prices of basic commodities are sky rocketing beyond the reach of common man. The question no one is willing to answer is how do they define fair and free elections?

In a nation where there is no balance of power between various institutions it is quite natural that various parts of the government will strive to gain maximum advantage from any future set-up. Military leadership abusing their powers use Inter Services Intelligence Agency (ISI) to maintain a dossier on civilian political leaders which is not part of its mandate. These secret files are used for political maneuvering whenever a General grabs power. Since the military leadership abuse this institution it is unnatural to assume that the officers in the field will not try to have their own view included in the equation. It is beyond doubt that the new generation of army officers are more inclined to be religious and conservative in their lifestyles. To conduct fair and free elections it is important that the political wing of ISI should be rolled back. It is also important that the Chief of Army Staff ensure that it will focus more on fight against terrorism and prevention of external threats.

Election duties are performed by lowly paid education department and district officers. These subsistence level people are already stressed for the mere survival. It is hard to believe that these officers will jeopardize their jobs if a higher officer in the civilian and military establishment demands certain unfair actions from them during the elections. Unless election staff is fused with certain nationalist ideology it can not be expected that they will risk their livelihood as well as their life for an election result that do not matter to them much.

Elections are not an end in itself. It is a means to elect leaders that can provide law & order, institute a viable economic policy and protect the sovereignty of the nation. No political leader is presenting an ideology that will solve the social, economic and political crisis faced by the nation. Most of the leaders are looking outward by seeking help from other countries to gain political clout. It is believed that the return of Nawaz Shariff was orchestrated by the Saudi government which wants to maintain a certain clout in the future political set-up of Pakistan. It is not a secret any more that Benazir Bhutto signed a deal with Musharraf brokered by US and UK. In this environment of mistrust when leaders are not in synch with the nation, the fair and free elections can not be expected.

Foreign powers operating in Pakistan are well aware that fair and free elections might produce results that are not in their interest. They have already experienced this scenario in Algeria, Palestine, Lebanon, and Turkey where Islamic political parties gained widespread support in the elections. For these powers it is better to maintain their grip on the government through a distorted democracy resulting from election rigging rather than face the prospect of dealing with a conservative force which has people’s mandate. In a poverty stricken country it is not difficult for them to spend small amounts of money to buy people who are willing to interfere with fair elections. These foreign powers have enough networks in the country comprised of locals that executing this strategy is not too difficult.

Fair and free elections are responsibility of an independent judiciary. On November 3rd President Musharraf fatally struck at the independence of the judiciary by removing the dissenting judges. Now nation has no institution available that can work as an arbiter among political parties if they want to seek justice against unfairness in elections. On the other hand judiciary needs a strong police force that can execute its decisions. The morale and condition of the police force is so deteriorated that it can not be expected that they can with stand the pressure exerted by the establishment, military or powerful landlords.

Independent media plays a pivotal role in maintaining transparency of the electoral process. Media also plays a significant role in disseminating the message of different political parties. In last 6 years media has strengthened its role as a bridge between the rulers and the ruled. The open debates between differing political factions have contributed in education of the people about the views held by their representative. During his struggle for re-election President Musharraf has struck a serious blow at the independence of media by forcing the cable operators to pull plug on many channels. In order to continue their operations media outlets have to agree to an amended Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority (PEMRA) ordinance which imposed many strict broadcasting conditions on the channels. In this hostile environment it can not be expected that media will be able to point finger at irregularities during the elections.

The tradition in Pakistan is such that winning party assumes that they will stay in power for ever and take revengeful actions against the losers. We have seen this play out during the two terms of Nawaz Shariff and Benazir Bhutto when both of them went after the throat of the other. When both these leaders decided to work together there was a feeling that at last there will be some decency after elections but it seems that the old tradition of revenge will be repeated. This feeling of survival of the fittest creates an environment where losing an election is sort of a death warrant. Unless this kind of hostility is defused we can not expect to create stable institutions. Our leaders have to learn to live with loss and wait for their term in the next elections.

In this environment, when there is no ideological agreement between leaders and constituents, it is hard to believe that fair elections are the solution to nation’s problem. We have to agree that the country belongs to all of us and we have to work together to build it. A stable government is one of the necessary components for a nation’s prosperity and progress. All of us whether a policeman, a teacher, a leader and a solider have to understand that any unfair actions under their watch is going to damage the nation. After that if the leaders do not accept the results we can all stand up to make it clear to them that enough is enough. Either they work together or the nation will get rid of them to make room for leaders that can work together.

Comments (1)

Legacy of Benazir Bhutto

December 31, 2007 at 3:20 am · Filed under Political Commentary

Loss of life is tragic in itself but loss of a leader creates chaos in a nation. We witnessed this chaos when leader of Pakistan Peoples Party (PPP) Mohtarma Benazir Bhutto lost her life to a terrorist attack during a political rally in Rawalpindi on December 27th, 2007. This is no doubt a national loss and she will be remembered for a long time for her contributions to the nation. But a political leader is owned by its constituents and it is the right of the people to evaluate their performance. She belonged to a political family going back almost four generations. Politics was considered part of her genes and she could not stay out of it for long. She demonstrated tremendous political acumen when she came back to the center stage after 10 years of self imposed exile. For her nothing ever was off the table for political advantage. Whether it was negotiating with the military general that sacked her father or forming a deal with General Musharraf to return to power. She did not hesitated to seek amendments in constitution, devised by her own father, to get a chance at premiership for the third term. She demonstrated a lot of courage by holding election rallies in all four provinces despite grave threats to her life. She maintained a strong grip on her party through placement of loyalists at all levels of the party. Even after her death, she contributed in preserving the control of the party by Bhutto family by advising in her will that her husband or son should be nominated for the party chairmanship.
Her father Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto rose to power at the back of a military ruler Field Marshall Ayub Khan who appointed him as foreign minister in his cabinet. He later refused to accept the internationally recognized fair elections of 1970 because he could not work with the government of Awani league of East Pakistan as a majority party. He demanded boycott of the national assembly session in Dhaka that decision later became the main cause of separation of East Pakistan. On the economic front Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto pursued a socialist agenda and nationalized all industries which resulted in expansion of government powers and industrial backwardness of Pakistan. Zuliqar Ali Bhutto was also responsible for creating the separatist movement in Balochistan by ordering military operations to subjugate nationalist Balochi leaders.

Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto became victim of General Zia ul Haq’s Marshall-law who brought murder charges against him. Supreme Court of Pakistan, influenced by the military government, convicted him of murder charges and ordered his hanging which was promptly carried out by the government. Benazir Bhutto, oldest child of the deposed Prime Minister, while living abroad vowed to take revenge from the military and continue their struggle in the form of Alliance for Restoration of Democracy (ARD). As General Zia felt increasing pressure for restoration of democracy, Benazir agreed to participate in the political process and returned to the country in 1986. There was a widespread belief that she returned to the country by negotiating a deal with the General who deposed and killed her father. Her first stint at power was brief but clouded by charges of corruption and nepotism. She was also considered responsible for the rise of Taliban in Afghanistan. But this might not be totally true as military had its own interest in supporting them with or without Benazir’s consent. Her government was dissolved, in 1990, without completing its term in office.

She got another chance to form a government in 1993 when her party again got slight majority in the national assembly. Unfortunately she had not learned from her past experience and once again nepotism and corruption became hallmark of her second term in office. In 1996, her government was once again dissolved before completing its term by her hand picked President and associate Farooq Ahmed Khan Leghari.

During last nine years of General Musharraf’s rule Benazir stayed out of the country in a self-imposed exile. She returned to the country in October 2007 after a controversial deal with the military ruler who swore never to deal with corrupt politicians Benazir and Nawaz Sharif. It was also widely reported that US, UK and other western powers brokered the deal. They believed her to be the only option available to introduce liberalization, modernization and tolerance to the country. This reliance on individuals whether it is Benazir or Musharraf is a faulty approach. West seems to forget that they themselves fought the forces of religious conservatism by introduction of equal opportunity, education, justice and diversity in their societies. Pakistan can not become a modern country unless US and other countries provide financial support for social reforms, education and introduction of free market economy. Instead of supporting authoritarian military rulers, West should also make it clear to the military generals that their involvement in politics will not be accepted.

Traditionally governments in Pakistan try to find a escape goat to blame for any man made calamity. Interim government has blamed al-Qaeda terrorist for the assassination of Benazir Bhutto without gathering complete evidence to prove this claim. Since her return to Pakistan Benazir Bhutto made many statements that were uncomfortable for the establishment. She told foreign correspondence that she will allow interview of Dr. A. Q. Khan by the IAEA. She also suggested that diplomatic relations with Israel will be established if she was elected Prime Minister. She was also seen as a beneficiary of the curtailment of an independent Supreme Court which might have overturned the reconciliation order issued by General Musharraf to pave way for her return to the country.

People of Pakistan have given enough sacrifices for leaders that are driven by their personal desire for power without belief in the democratic principles. Benazir presented herself as a democratic leader but in her will she advised the party to appoint her husband or son as party chairman ignoring services of the experienced and respected political figures like Makhdoom Amin Fahim, Raza Rabbani and Raja Pervaiz Ashraf. Asif Ali Zardari might have learned his lesson during his 8 years in jail but it is very difficult for him to control his innate desire for power and riches. He is neither qualified nor respected among the party loyalists.

The riots that ensued after the assassination of Benazir Bhutto have only resulted in the loss for the people itself. All the buses, banks, cars and train engines were wealth of the nation. It is hard to imagine that a family that just lost a son or daughter will start burning their furniture or damage their home. All political leaders have tried to justify the riots as understandable anger of the nation for losing their beloved leader. This is not acceptable as these leaders should condemn the riots resulting in loss of innocent life and property. It is hard to believe that people looting government and private property are loyal to any patriotic party. We have to take ownership of our country and unite for the future. We can not expect others to be as sincere to us as we can be to each other.

Leave a Comment

The politics of division

December 22, 2007 at 6:23 pm · Filed under Political Commentary

The modern political theory encourages emergence of professional politicians. They argue that the issues of modern societies are so complicated that only specialists can perform the research and arrive at the best possible solution for the community. In order to prevent chaos of divergent views in a parliament members are encouraged to form platforms among like minded members. These platforms over the years become political parties to allow arrival of consensus in legislative process. In most developed democracies number of parties is handful. For instance US political system is controlled by republican and democratic parties. Similarly in England governments are formed by two party system between Tory and Labor party. Similar two or three party system exists in most of the stable democracies of Turkey, Malaysia, Germany, France, South Korea. In countries where there are more than three parties the effectiveness of the democratic institutions diminishes because of lack of consensus among the legislature. There are many political theorists that question the effectiveness of party based political system but it is quite apparent that if it is adopted then small number of parties produces better results. There are many reasons for weak democratic institutions in Pakistan but it is probable that proliferation of large number of parties is one of the main reasons. Political divisions have been favored by military generals who have controlled the governments for over 40 years of the last 60 years of existence. The elections of 2008 are not much different. According to Election commission web site there are 49 parties contesting for national assembly seats. The question then arises is why do we have so many parties? And what can be done to remedy this situation? 

The prime reason for large number of parties is the absence of national will, lack of provincial harmony and disagreement on future direction. Regional insecurity induces the constituents to elect candidates that can safeguard local interest at the cost of national consensus. This has resulted in the emergence of narrowly defined ethnic and sectarian parties like ANP, MQM, JUI, Balochistan National Party, etc. that attract vote by appealing to the local grievances and targeting the ethnic inequalities. The military establishment gives wind to these ethnic and sectarian sentiments to ensure a divided political structure which results in corruption and ineffectiveness producing mass frustration which eventually lead to military take over. On the other hand large parties with national manifestos are plagued by undemocratic practices. Individuals dominate the leadership roles with no expiration of terms. This is evident in PPP which is dominated by Benazir Bhutto as lifelong chairman. PML is dominated by Nawaz Sharif or Chaudhry family. It is quite natural for any politician to be ambitious with a desire to slowly rise to the top. When young aspiring leaders find it impossible to eventually lead their parties they are forced to break ranks and form their own break away factions. Sadly they do not learn from their own experience and adopt the same dictatorial practices in their own factions thereby repeating the cycle for further division. This situation has resulted in many factions of PPP into PPPP, PPP forward block, PPP Sherpao etc. In PML it has resulted in PML (Q), PML (N), PML functional etc. etc. Even sectarian parties like JUI have divided into JUI Niazi and JUI Fazl ur Rehman groups. 

There are many ways to correct this divisive situation and embark on a journey of consolidation. First of all regulations for political parties need to be amended to ensure that there is succession of leadership in the ranks of party leadership. Constitution of party should be subservient to the constitution of the country. This means that there should be term limits for the top leadership of the party so that new leaders have a chance of rising to the top. Anyone nominated to contest a regional or national election should be barred from holding a party position to prevent conflict of interest. No party should be allowed to participate in the national assembly elections unless they can establish membership from all four provinces and demonstrate at least 15% votes in the last two elections. This will encourage rise of the national leadership with an eye towards development of the federation. Smaller regional parties should be allowed to form alliances with larger national parties to secure their voice in national policy and get some seats allocated to them from the alliance. Nomination of candidates should also be done through member’s votes rather than committee nominations. Selection of candidates through committees gives rise to personal power at the expense of party interests. Media outlets should be regulated to provide equal time to all candidates to ensure fairness and equal opportunity. 

Running political campaigns is an expensive matter. Financial constraints prevent many good candidates to participate in elections. Like developed countries, campaign finance rules should be devised so that candidates can raise funds to finance their campaigns. Use of personal funds in elections should be restricted to a certain amount to prevent future profiteering from holding parliamentary positions. MQM has demonstrated its ability to raise funds from the middle classes. Although in the absence of good leadership it has more often resulted in extortion of money by party workers from industrialists and factories in Korangi and S.I.T.E area of Karachi. In developed countries candidates arrange fund raising dinners to not only speak to their constituents but raise funds for their campaigns. 

We can not become a nation unless divisions are reduced from ethnic, sectarian and personal issues to national issues. Instead of forming a round table of politics with each party holding a small pie it is better to sit in a room with only two sides. Unless we reduce the political divisions and allow emergence of national leadership it is a pipe dream to hope that divisions will reduce on its own. Poverty stricken Balochistan and NWFP can not expect to send ethnic leaders with handful of seats to have a stronger voice for their rights in the national assembly. Instead if they could gain control of provincial governments and have substantial clout in a national alliance they could exert more influence to get resources for their provinces. 

Voters also have to reject smaller parties and rally around larger parties to reduce the political divisions. All of us have an individual role to play in the upcoming elections. We can not just sit on the sidelines and expect politicians to sort out things for us. We have to get active and participate. The best way to participate is to cast your vote with an eye towards national reconciliation rather than narrow minded regional benefits. Let us reject sectarianism, ethnicity and religious extremism. Let us give majority mandate to national parties so they can not give us excuse later on for their ineffectiveness. Let us give a clear message to the military leadership that their meddling in politics is no longer welcome and it is not their job to run government. If they allow democracy to prevail it will eventually grow into maturity and enable good leadership to emerge to lead the nation.

Leave a Comment

Older Posts »