Mohammad Jamil

Pakistan is at war with terrorists; and it is also fighting alien agents who are out to destabilize Pakistan. At this crucial juncture, change of guard is neither advisable nor desirable. Since Raymond Davis episode to US Navy Seals attack on Abbottabad compound to attack on Salala border posts, efforts are being made by the axis of evil to push Pakistan against the wall and coerce it into doing their bidding. It would not be an exaggeration to say that Chief of Army Staff Ashfaq Pervez Kayani and Lt. General Ahmad Shuja Pasha have had the spine to resist the pressures and there is a perception that civilian leadership inspired by them has expressed resolve not to buckle under pressure from the US on matters like Iran-Pakistan gas pipeline. Only imbeciles, pseudo-intellectuals and palmed off media men criticize military and intelligence agencies that have valiantly fought the terrorists and are countering alien agents’ pernicious designs. However, some politicians are criticizing military for imposing Martial Laws in the past, though they themselves were beneficiaries of the Martial Law.

Last year, PML-N had opposed the extension to ISI chief Lt. General Ahmad Shuja Pasha’s tenure. Since the second tenure of General Pasha is ending in this month, the government is reportedly considering another extension to General Pasha, though other names are also being mentioned in case General Pasha decides to call it a day. Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N) senior member and Leader of the Opposition Chaudhry Nisar Ali Khan has warned the federal government of giving extension to Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) chief Lt General Ahmad Shuja Pasha. “There are a lot of competent generals who are capable for this post and I hope that the Army would devise a strategy on who should replace Pasha,” Nisar said in a press conference in Lahore recently. He said that the civil society along with the PML-N would protest against a possible extension for Pasha, adding that he should be replaced by a competent and capable army general. He should not forget that it is the prerogative of the Prime Minister to take such decisions, and the leader of the opposition has no say in this matter.

It is unfortunate that the ISI is being criticized by some politicians and media men for promoting and funding political parties on the basis of what happened more than two decades ago vis-à-vis Mehran Scandal. But the amount of money spent on horse-trading during elections in assemblies and especially the recent senate elections is colossal. There were convincing media reports about buying and selling of votes in the Senate elections, which got more credence from the statement of President Asif Ali Zardari that ‘horse-trading’ did take place during voting for elections of the Upper House of Parliament. The President was speaking in limited terms as his reference of horse-trading was apparently towards Punjab where one of his candidates lost because of reported change of loyalties by some PPP members. However, there are hosts of reports about horse-trading involving millions and billions of rupees in Senate elections for FATA seats and in Balochistan. It has to be mentioned that those involved in horse trading in senate elections are members of the provincial assemblies, who are elected representatives of the people.

Anyhow, Chaudhry Nisar has many a time lashed out at the intelligence agency’s suspected role in allegedly promoting political parties like Imran Khan’s Tehrik-e-Insaf. In an interview with national English daily, the opposition leader said that the incumbent had a history of massive intelligence failures. “During Pasha’s tenure, the nation witnessed massive intelligence failures like the Abbottabad raid, Mumbai tragedy (India), PNS Mehran Base attack, Memogate and the Nato attack on the Salala Checkpost,” adding that, “ It was unfortunate that despite all this, according to Pasha, Chief of Army Staff General Ashfaq Pervez Kiyani has repeatedly stopped him from resigning, which is strange.” In fact, Nisar Ali Khan is trying to create confusion and mess up the things. It is strange that for Mumbai tragedy also he blames General Pasha, which was in fact failure of Indian intelligence. 9/11 had happened in spite of scores of American intelligence agencies network and security system.

In 2010, when matter of extension to COAS General Ashfaq Pervez Kayani came up, Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gillani had stated that it was his prerogative, and he would exercise it. Given the dire situation and ongoing war on terrorism, people were already expecting that the COAS would get the extension, but after the hint from the prime minister, some analysts and intellectuals wrote articles opposing his extension. Letters to the editors also appeared that smacked of a sort of campaign against his extension. Prime Minister took quick decision to end the controversy. Now the debate is raging in print and electronic media, and many analysts oppose it on the grounds that it will deprive many officers of the promotion. Pakistan is indeed at war with the terrorists and there are threats to Pakistan’s internal and external security. In these circumstances, the extension to the ISI would be justified. Of course, extension would be for one year, and not for an indefinite period. In fact, Prime Minister had said in 2010 that all of us would leave in 2013 together. It appears that despite misunderstanding over memogate, he is likely to keep his promise.

Some PML-N leaders had also complained that Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani did not discuss the matter with Mian Nawaz Sharif. The question is whether former prime minister Mian Nawaz Sharif had taken late Benazir Bhutto into confidence when he had shown the door to then COAS Jehangir Karamat? Did Mian Nawaz Sharif consult Mohtarma Benazir when he appointed Pervez Musharraf as COAS superseding General Ali Quli Khan, who then resigned? Did he consult Benazir Bhutto when he appointed General Zia-ud-Din Butt replacing General Pervez Musharraf? Knowing Mian Sahib’s stature and temperament, one could say with confidence that no such matters were ever discussed in the cabinet. According to reports, Mian Nawaz Sharif at the time of sacking Pervez Musharraf, had called then defence secretary General Iftikhar to the airport, and they discussed the matter in the car. General Iftikhar had reportedly suggested that let Pervez Musharraf come back and then a ceremonial exit can be organized, which was ignored.

We should, however, appreciate that the present military leadership has been performing its duties within the parameters of the Constitution. Despite Nisar Ali Khan’s hullabaloo, today military is not involved in politics, and according to reports the political wing of the ISI was also closed four years ago. In this backdrop, there is no need to criticize the army. It has to be mentioned that when General Ashfaq Parvez Kayani took over as COAS, terrorists had traumatized the people of northwest and FATA. The writ of state did not exist in Swat and Malakand at that time, as the civil administration was on the run. Even political leaders had abandoned their abodes to find safe havens away from the terrorists. In FATA, terrorists had either killed political agents or forced them to quit the region. Today, Swat and Malakand have been cleared and operation in South Waziristan has been completed. Yet, there are some remnants, and also insidious plans of the alien intelligence agencies, which need to be countered.

Raja G Mujtaba

This paper is based on S M Hali’s weekly TV program Defence and Diplomacy wher on the panel he had two eminent personalities who are considered to be authority in their fields of expertise. The video clipping is at the end of the article.

?Pakistan has the most economic potential but is being ruined by the most corrupt, inefficient and myopic political clout. The clout is not working on one front for Pakistan’s destruction but in every direction at every level.

Present government’s mishandling of the water case is no exception. Jamal Shah, Chairman Water Authority was deputed to plead the case in World Bank/International Court who absconded and Pakistan lost the case. Who is this Jamal Shah and what links he has with the top men in Islamabad needs to be investigated, the truth will come out.

Signing of MFN treaty with India is another step in the same direction whereby the interests of Pakistan are being sold out, then what one should expect from the people where money is made on every move and every process. The recent Senate elections have exposed all. Those who have bought their seats into Senate are up for sale for the price they want.

With this background expecting something positive for this country would be a miracle. As Shamsul Mulk, the former Chairman WAPDA has said that we are our own worst enemies.

In the same context, General Mirza Aslam Beg wrote a letter to Opinion Maker, on Indian Supreme Court’s orders to interlink the rivers, where he exposes Indian designs, which is nothing short of hegemony and subjugation. Why India is doing so is very clear from the fact that the powers that matter today are behind India. With this Indian Supreme Court Order, Bangladesh would be the worst affected where rivers would go dry and the sea water would come inland turning the land into saline marshy land.

It’s not just the water issue, that would affect Pakistan and Bangladesh both that the world is turning away its eye from but hundreds and thousands of ruthless killings in over a dozen states of India is going on that also does not catch the eye from any quarter.

Over a million troops are packed in Indian Occupied Kashmir where countless innocents have been killed, maimed or arrested. Women raped, children killed and pregnant women shot in the wombs. With that mindset and background, if India is denying water to her neighbours then who cares.

With Pakistan, India signed Indus Water Treaty in 1962, according to that treaty, 3 westerly rivers, namely Indus, Jhelum and Chenab were given to Pakistan and three easterly rivers namely Ravi, Sutlej and Beas were given to India. After having blocked her rivers, now India is putting up dams on the three westerly rivers on which Pakistan has the exclusive rights.

27 February 2012, ordered the government to implement the 2002 project to link major rivers in India ‘in a time-bound manner’. The over $100 billion project will link around 30 rivers, to ensure flood control and equitable distribution of water by efficient transfer of water from surplus to deficit areas. The project is split into the Himalayan component (with 14 linkages) and the Peninsular component (with 16 linkages). The Himalayan component includes linking the Brahmaputra, Ganges and other rivers. The Peninsular component is to develop a southern Water Grid. This includes linking of Krishna, Cauvery, Mahanadi and Godavari rivers. Thus, the project aims to link 30 major rivers and construction of large dams within India, Nepal and Bhutan, requiring international agreements with these countries.

Pakistan sharply reacted to this dangerous Indian move of inter linking of disputed rivers in the Occupied Kashmir and said that the $100 billion project to link around 30 rivers would strangulate Pakistan, but no response from India, who continues building 300 small and major dams, linking the rivers to contain Pakistan’s water share. Additionally, “India has allocated $212 billion for turning the water courses of Chenab, Jhelum and Indus from North to South and deprive Pakistan of its share of water and establish Indian water hegemony – an all-encompassing strategy to destabilize Pakistan. These dams are affecting seven million acres of fertile land.

According to articles 3, 4 and 7 of Indus Water Treaty, India could not construct any water reservoirs, over western rivers of Chenab, Jhelum and Sindh nor it could divert the catchment areas of tributary canals of these rivers. New Delhi is also bound to notify Pakistan in advance about the water schemes but so far it has failed to do so. Pakistan only becomes aware of the project, when they are complete by 70 percent. These include 24 projects on River Chenab, 52 on River Jhelum and 18 on River Indus. Pakistan’s agriculture is under serious threat.

Rivers, lakes and aquifers, are national security assets to be protected. What plans does Pakistan have to challenge Indian water hegemony? He may blame India for what its doing, but before that we need to take a stock of our own doings. Have we been able to manage the water from the three westerly rivers that have been allocated to Pakistan under the treaty?

Everyone is out to criticize Ayub Khan, the former President of Pakistan for having sold out Pakistan and Kashmir under Indus Basin Treaty, who under the said treaty laid out a series of link canals, and dams to store water for effective management to irrigate lands and produce hydel power. Since he left, not single water storage of some capacity has been added to the network.

Kalabagh Dam that was approved in the 1950s has been killed by the politicians and those who opposed it need to be studied for their links with outside forces. They were not opposing based on some technical grounds, but the opposition has been purely.

Presently, Pakistan has two major dams, namely Tarbela and Mangla; both due to sedimentation have lost their capacity to hold water by about 35%. Not that these need de-silting for water storage alone but power generation has gone down too. No effort is being made at any level to meet the present and future needs of the country we need more dams at every possible location. Dams not only store water but also feed the subsurface water arteries that can help agriculture and other human needs elsewhere through tube-wells etc.

Pakistan has the potential to generate over 60,000 MWs of power from rivers alone and if this is supplemented through windmills, solar and Thar Coal then Pakistan would be the richest country in energy resources. But, we need a vision, political will and commitment to do that; no messiah in sight.—OM

Mahir Ali

Moscow, according to the title of an Academy Award-winning Soviet film from 1980, ‘does not believe in tears’. Now, there may indeed have been cause for tears in Moscow on Sunday night as election results confirmed the inevitable: a six-year presidential term for Vladimir Putin, who by the end of it will have matched Leonid Ilyich Brezhnev’s longevity at the helm. It’s nonetheless hard to understand why Putin wept as he declared: “I promised you we would win. We have won. Glory to Russia.”

After all, the result of the presidential poll wasn’t exactly unexpected. Although there has been a surge in popular opposition to Putin since last year’s confirmation that, following a four-year interregnum during which he has presided over Russia’s fortunes as prime minister, he would be aiming once more for the prime post of head of state, nobody seriously expected him to lose the contest, or even to fare poorly enough to necessitate a second round.

The presidency was his for the taking, and he wasn’t exactly reticent in demanding it back from Dmitry Medvedev, whose role as seat-warmer was fairly obvious from the outset of his presidential term. Medvedev has on occasion demonstrated streaks of independence, but they may well have been part of a well-rehearsed good-cop, bad-cop routine. If not, the incumbent head of state could find himself unable to reclaim his previous post as prime minister when his successor and predecessor begins his third presidential term in May.

Putin was no doubt alarmed when his nominal party United Russia’s proportion of the vote fell below 50 per cent in last December’s parliamentary elections, despite the ballot-stuffing shenanigans that usually attend such events, including so-called carousel voting, whereby the same bunch of voters is ferried from one polling booth to another.

United Russia’s relatively poor showing was partly a consequence of the opposition’s endeavours, but it was easier to persuade voters to pick another party — any party — than to choose a different presidential candidate.

This is not unrelated to Putin’s inexorable propaganda advantage, and it can only be assumed that his regular efforts to portray himself as a kind of superman — bare-chested astride a horse, at the helm of a submarine or a fighter jet, in ski gear or sea-diving attire — have the desired effect on rural multitudes accustomed since the days of the tsars to godheads in the Kremlin.

At the same time, there can be little doubt that Putin’s apparent popularity depends to a considerable extent on the unimpressiveness of his opponents, a number of whom have been perennial presidential candidates in the post-Soviet era. The Communist Party, for instance, appears to have given little thought to replacing the singularly uncharismatic Gennady Zyuganov, who, not for the first time, came a distant second this week. The even more absurd right-wing nationalist Vladimir Zhirinovsky also continues to turn up on ballot papers.

Neither of them, and none of the even less well-known candidates, could even half-seriously have been expected to capture the popular imagination, let alone posit themselves as a credible alternative to Putin.

More broadly, a comparable malaise afflicts the opposition that has lately made its presence felt on the streets of Moscow and St Petersburg. It may be united in demanding that Putin must go, but has broadly failed to articulate what ought to replace him. Greater democracy? Sure, that’s a worthy endeavour — but what exactly would it entail?

A more democratic and less repressive Russia would indeed be welcome. Putinism isn’t exactly totalitarianism, but that has more to do with post-Soviet verities than with Putin’s intentions. There was greater political diversity under the last Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev — who, after initially supporting Putin as an alternative to the erratic Yeltsin phase, last year called upon him to bow out.

That’s largely because the Gorbachev era was all about change, whereas the age of Putin has largely been about continuity. Nobody, apart from the rampant crony capitalists, is particularly keen on pressing on with crony capitalism. It has been suggested that, in the face of opposition, Putin might readjust his priorities.

It has also been said that, given his role in accumulating billions of roubles while his cronies have done the same, Putin can ill afford to let go of the reins of power, as even an ostensibly non-hostile successor would feel obliged to imprison him for his excesses.

Putin has just been re-endorsed for six years. If nothing much changes during that period, he could stretch it to an even dozen — which would take him past the Brezhnev level, but without quite equalling Josef Stalin’s disastrous 31 years at the helm.

For whatever it’s worth, the Russian opposition must focus on a social-democratic alternative to the incumbent. A focus on attainable redistributive justice may indeed turn the tide in time for the Bolshevik Revolution centenary in 2017.—KT