The Muslim world at the crossroadsByTalat MasoodPublished: March 11, 2015The writer is a retired lieutenant general of the Pakistan Army and served as chairman of the Pakistan Ordnance Factories BoardIn the Middle East, a tragic picture is emerging. Iraq, Syria, Libya and now Yemen are being torn apart by geo-sectarian and ethnic conflicts. Bahrain, too, is on the edge and is keeping the lid on internal sectarian rivalry by repressive measures. Regional rivals, Saudi Arabia and Iran, through their proxy wars, are adding fuel to the fire. What they fail to see is that this is acting as a catalyst for the Islamic State (IS) and other militant groups to expand their power bases.The Arab Springhas turned into an Arab Autumn. The only exception in the Arab world is Tunisia where the Arab Spring has proved a great success and democracy is taking roots with a progressive and modern outlook. In contrast, in Egypt, where the influence of the military runs deep, General Sisi,after ousting the elected president Mohamed Morsiin 2014, has reverted to authoritarian rule. Autocratic meltdown is evident in Libya and countries of the Middle East are at different stages of transition. Yemen, as noted earlier, has collapsed and Syria is halfway there with large ungoverned spaces struggling hard to avert total breakdown despite avid support from Iran and Russia. Saudi Arabia, the icon of the Arab world, is engaged in a three-front battle. It is fighting the IS and al Qaeda, running a proxy war against Iran by supporting groups that are fighting Bashar al-Assad in Syria, the regime in Iraq and the Houthi tribesman of Yemen. It faces occasional resistance from its Shia community in the eastern part of the country. Some frustrated segments of Saudi youth are reported to have joined the IS. There is also pressure on the monarchy for reform and easing of restrictions on women and on freedom of speech. Withoil prices fallingand the US now able to export oil instead of being dependent on imports, the importance of oil-producing Gulf countries has diminished.To add to Saudi woes, Washington looks close to wrapping up a nuclear deal with Tehran. With the experience of hindsight, Riyadh is justified in seeking ironclad guarantees because Iran has in the past secretely engaged in a nuclear enrichment programme. No wonder then that in recent years, Riyadh has made moves to start its own civilian nuclear programme with the help of French companies in the framework of the NPT. Saudi Arabia is taking a hard position as it fears that even the acquisition of civil nuclear technology by Iran could tilt the strategic balance in the latters favour. But with Irans economy in distress due to sanctions and low oil prices it seems agreeable to cut back significantly on the centrifuges.Israel, which itself is an opaque nuclear power, hypocritically remains the most vehement critic of any deal that allows Iran to retain nuclear infrastructure or a capability for indigenous uranium enrichment. Israel also enjoys the full backing of the Republicans in the US in its opposition to the Iranian nuclear programme. This was evident from the ecstatic reception accorded to Benjamin Netanyahu during his recentemotional address to Congress.From the Iranian leaderships perspective, this is a strategic moment as it has significantly advanced its influence in several regional countries. In Iraq, Syria, Libya and Yemen, power is now in the hands of those parties or groups that are close to Iran. Moreover, in Lebanon, the pro-Iran Hezbollahs influence has been increasing and Hamas in Gaza enjoys a cosy relationship with Tehran. Iran has also significantly increased its influence in Afghanistan.The Saudis are worried that once the nuclear deal materialises, the US will lean towards Tehran because it has more in common with it and that will further alter the strategic balance in Irans favour. Secretary John Kerry, during his recent visit to Riyadh, tried to allay these concerns but doubts remain. However, the Saudis are taking no chances and are building an alliance to countervail Iran. A stream of recent visitors to Riyadh that includes the presidents of Egypt and Turkey, and Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif is a manifestation of this policy in which support of these countries is being vigorously sought.The Saudis and Iranians realise that with increased oil production in the US and growing alternative sources of energy, oil is no longer a key strategic determinant. What really matters is the internal strength of these countries that is dependent on domestic cohesion, the level of democratisation, and institutional and economic development. Although neither of these two countries can claim to be democratic, Iran clearly is more homogeneous, has an educated elite and is less dependent on foreign support.Pakistans vital national interests require extremely deft handling of its relations with both these countries. Iran is a key neighbour with whom we have strong cultural and religious ties and share a long border in the restive province of Balochistan. Pakistan has a large Shia population, estimates range between 15 to 20 per cent, which has a close affinity with Iran. We also have to be mindful of close relations of Iran with Afghanistan, India and Russia. An antagonistic relationship with Tehran will add a new and dangerous element in our fight for internal stability and peace that could lead to increased turbulence in Balochistan and other parts of Pakistan.For us, Saudi Arabia is a strategic partner and an indispensable ally. Being custodians of Makkah and Medina, they enjoy a special place in the hearts of our people. Of course, we have to fully support Saudi Arabia in its fight against the IS and al Qaeda. But we should avoid getting caught in a nutcracker by taking sides. No country has suffered as much as Pakistan by joining regional and global alliances. It is clearly in our best interest to balance the relationship with Iran and Saudi Arabia and endeavour to play a conciliatory role by bringing the adversaries to work for the common good of their people and the region. By taking sides, we will further sharpen the divide in the Middle East and the raging flames will engulf Pakistan in a much bigger way than we have ever experienced in the past.Senate: ideals and practiceByImtiaz GulPublished: March 11, 20150SHARESFACEBOOKTWITTEREMAIL

The writer heads the independent Centre for Research and Security Studies, IslamabadThe brazen trading of votes and money surroundingthe recent round of Senate electionsdeserves a dispassionate debate. It has not only exposed the ruling elites selfish propensity to buy a seat in the Upper House but also kicked up a critically important question: is the Senate meant to protect smaller provinces from the so-called tyranny of the majority as argued by James Madison, the fourth president of the United States (180917), or is it a debating club largely for the kith and kin of the ruling elite and their affluent friends who can throw money bags at their voters?Let us see what motivated the founding fathers of the United States to suggest a bicameral legislature. They, including Madison, envisioned the Senate to be a wise stabilising force, elected not by mass electors, but selected by state legislators. Senators would be more knowledgeable and more deliberate, as was the assumption. The Upper House was designed to shield minority federating units/provinces from the oppression of the majority.Bicameral legislatures are linked primarily to their federal political structure and are supposed to ensure that smaller states within a federation or union are not overshadowed by larger states, which may have more representation in the other House of the legislature. It is also supposed to guard against an encroaching centre.Contrast this with the Senate of Pakistan. The motive behind the creation of the Senate was also to give equal representation to all the four federating units since the membership of the National Assembly was based on the population of each province. Equal provincial membership in the Upper House, thought the authors ofthe 1973 Constitution, would offset the provincial inequality in the National Assembly.Where is that spirit? Has the Senate acted as a pivot of wisdom? Has it protected the rights of Balochistan? Have its members and the mainstream political parties upheld their constitutional obligations? Well, by indulging in buying and selling of votes, many aspirants to the Senate shamed democracy they committed nothing less than a murder of the very democratic norms that these parliamentarians are supposed to stand for.The PML-N advocated fair elections but itself awarded one of the Balochistan tickets to an extremely wealthy lawmaker who originates from Punjab, Kulsoom Perveen. The Sharifs shelved all their moral scruples when awarding the ticket to her in a blatant misuse of authority. Raheela Magsi, a PML-N senator elected from Islamabad, also defied the logic of representation of smaller provinces. Similarly, Fata senators reportedly upped the ante at the eleventh hour but the late promulgation of an ordinance came in their way. Close to Fata is a particularly wealthy family from Dera Ismail Khan, whose affluence almost always got it Senate tickets. However, this time around Pervez Khattak, the Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa chief minister, came in its way. For the first time, a chief minister outwitted money-wielders and denied them votes from within the PTI.It is about time, it seems, to build a bottom-up pressure for reviewing and reforming the farce that is called the Senate of Pakistan. Why cant we have a direct election for the Upper House too?Where are our local governments?ByTariq MahmudPublished: March 10, 20150SHARESFACEBOOKTWITTEREMAIL

The writer is an author, a public policy analyst and a former federal secretary. He teaches at the Lahore University of Management SciencesThe debate on local governments (LG) in Pakistan these days misses a key point: what types of functions will these institutions carry out? LG institutions are facing a pincer movement: the dithering overthe holding of LG pollshas eroded their representative legitimacy, while there has also been a gradual yet blatant takeover of some of the core functions of LGs by provincial governments. What we are seeing right now is the growing municipalisation of provincial governments, which are dabbling in the construction of roads and underpasses in cities, making arrangements for solid waste management as well as regulating building control mechanisms. We have the Sindh Building Control Authority while Punjab is also not lagging behind either with a draft bill on a similar body being established in the province being mulled over at the highest policy level. What we have seen over the years are non-representative federal and provincial bodies taking over cities, whether it is the KDA, the LDA, the QDA or the PDA, or the water boards or sanitation authorities. All these bodies are run by appointees who are not elected representatives. This state of affairs alludes to the tendency of our higher echelons of government preferring to keep control of matters which are essentially of local nature and should fall within the domain of LGs.In the past, LG institutions, till the incumbency of the last PML-N government, enjoyed considerable financial space and were able to raise a vast range of local taxes.I recall that district councils all over Punjabused to have appreciable surpluses on account of provision of export taxes. Likewise, urban local councils had good earnings through octroi despite the drain that electricity bills and expenditures on health and education facilities were on resources. Not only did these taxes help cover important expenditures, the way they were raised and their administration provided a good training ground for the elected leadership and staff of local councils. Later some key taxes were abolished at the behest of donors. Instead, a percentage of the general sales tax collection was set aside for local councils. The new arrangement not only denied these councils the opportunity to develop the capacity and skills to manage their own tax portfolio but also bound them into a dependency relationship as they were now reliant on federal dole. Their autonomy was also curbed. While there were some complaints regarding how local councils collected taxes, instead of removingthe bottlenecks, the government readily relented to the donors diktat.Where do we stand today? In Punjab, as mentioned earlier, there are serious attempts to set up a building control authority with the provincial government attempting to take over a key function, which would deny an income base to the local councils in the name of better management of spatial developments. In addition, waste management and even the subject of cattle markets is being taken out of the purview of LGs by setting up companies to look after these domains, which are not answerable to local councils. Their boards ofdirectors are headed by government appointees. The regulation of cattle markets had been an important function of rural councils as well as a significant source of revenue. In major towns of Punjab, with the setting up of parks and horticultural authorities that come under the provincial government, a key source of revenue in the form of income from bill boards and hoardings has already been taken out of the purview of municipal bodies. If this was not enough, under the new law on LGs, district education and health authorities are to be set up whose chiefs shall be appointed by the provincial government. A plain reading of the law does not give us any clue as to the relationship these authorities will have with the local councils.The issue here is not of service delivery only, but of representative legitimacy which is at stake because of these moves and our legislators are completely indifferent to the consequences of their acts. There may be some income-sharing between these upcoming entities and local councils but that will not resolve the issue at hand, which is about hampering the development of local level leadership and denying it the opportunity to gain valuable experience. The real leadership of this country is not going to emerge through our lacklustre assemblies. It is local level participative institutions that could provide a springboard for the launching of new and authentic leadership in Pakistan. It should be noted that personalities like Recep Tayyip Erdogan, Ahmadinejad and Joko Widodo were products of similar local level nurseries. What we require is fostering self-belief in our institutionsinstead of tinkering with them unnecessarily, which can result in unintended consequences.

Published in The Express Tribune, March 10th, 2015.LikeOpinion & Editorial on Facebook, follow@ETOpEdon Twitter to receive all updates on all our daily pieces.Like Us On FacebookFollow Us On Twitter

Top of FormGet News Every EveningBottom of Form

As ye sow so shall ye reapToday, the dream of IS is morphing into a reality but with the savagery and brutality that comes with war

Ayaz Fakir March 11, 2015 Be First To Comment

Fast moving events in the Middle East are focusing the worlds attention towards the latest troublespot: Syria. Islamic State (IS), being the new kid on the block, has quickly established itself as the force to be reckoned with. It has shown it has the required ruthlessness to make others sit up and pay attention. The current situation has the Saudis worried, who have till now been encouraging and exporting their Wahhabi extremism, creating terrorist cells throughout Pakistan. The Osama bin Laden outfit al Qaeda was the most visible and successful terrorist network, created ostensibly to destroy the Soviet incursion into Afghanistan. This culminated in the twin tower bombing, the effects of which are still being felt in the US.

Wahhabi madrassas (seminaries) are a breeding ground for suicide bombers and are destroying the once calm countryside that was Pakistans peaceful rural hinterland. Wahhabi extremism has cost Pakistan over 50,000 dead and many more injured. The huge funding by the Saudis (read Wahhabis) who are behind the killing of Shias in Balochistan are undermining the provincial administration. They are fighting a turf war against the Iranians on Pakistani soil, creating more than a headache for the Pakistani administration. Pakistan has enough problems grappling with poverty and illiteracy without Wahhabi funded terrorist activities. The killings of Shias and the targeting of Shia mosques is not only reprehensible but anti-Islam. However, with Saudi blessings, an Islamic cover is a given. The danger is to the state of Pakistan and this threat can destabilise Pakistan.

Pakistan is going through an extremely difficult period with political parties riddled in corruption facing charges of rigged elections and an army that is fighting a battle to root out insurgents in the northern areas. These insurgents have been funded by the same Wahhabis that are now seeking our help against the IS, the new threat that is assuming international proportions. IS is managing to attract school children even from Europe. Concerned parents have raised the alarm and the British and French governments are scrambling to stem this flow of children heading off to join IS in Syria. The growing popularity of IS is spreading from Syria towards Yemen and on towards Saudi Arabia, making the already shaky House of Saud even more nervous.

Today, the dream of IS is morphing into a reality but with the savagery and brutality that comes with war. It is this savagery that has scared the Saudis into rushing to call in their favours from Pakistan whilst ignoring the damage they have inflicted upon Pakistan by their reckless funding of Wahhabi madrassas. It is also the fault of our leaders that we have managed to allow the Saudis to spread their nefarious influence and have allowed the madrassas to indulge in their spread of terrorist activities for a few pieces of silver. Before the clearing of the northern areas, a cleansing of the madrassas should be done. The madrassas, like the monasteries of old, are indeed major contributors to the feeding and sheltering of poor children. And as such they are welcome. However, when these madrassas become nests for training suicide bombers, they must be severely dealt with. Also, the political parties that provide cover for such madrassas should be banned. There cannot be two opinions on this. The government should have kept a close watch on their activities, monitoring them from time to time. At any sign of militant behaviour the madrassas should have been shut down and handed over to a peaceful group, of which there are many. The government of Pakistan should not have ignored the signs of militancy long before the suicide vests started being manufactured.

Why have our successive administrators turned a blind eye to the growth of terror schools? A classic case was the Lal Masjid cleric who challenged the writ of the state and continued to do so while kidnapping the workers of beauty parlours in Islamabad. The burka brigade was seen on television armed with bamboo sticks guarding the perimetre of the madrassa in between patrolling the streets of Islamabad to impose their version of Islamic laws. They challenged the writ of the state and only a crackdown ordered by the ministry of interior brought it to a halt. The cleanup was costly and many lives were lost. It also served to bring down the Musharraf government.

Pakistanis are a peaceful people, poor but hardworking. They are forced to send their children to madrassas for lodging and education, certainly not to be trained as terrorists and to do the bidding of foreigners for their own special agenda. Sunni-Shia wars are being fought on our soil. This is unacceptable. When General Raheel Sharif visited Saudi Arabia it was believed that a message was delivered to the Saudis that the funding to terrorist madrassas should be stopped. The message now should be stronger. If IS has grown into a monster, it has been created by Saudi funding and maybe now it is too late. The monster is turning on its own creator.

The writer is a freelance columnistA Middle East overviewDespite several efforts by Israel to wipe out Hezbollah, Hamas and Islamic jihad completely, Israel failed to do so, enhancing their popularity in the Arab world

Syed Kashif Ali March 11, 2015 Be First To Comment

The state of Israel came into being in 1948. Since its inception, besides countless minor armed conflicts, it has fought four major wars with the Arabs in 1948, 1956, 1969 and 1973. Israel was mainly supported by the US, UK and France while Egypt, Syria, Jordan, Iraq, Lebanon and the Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO) under Yasser Arafat were the key players on the Arab side. Israel inflicted heavy loses on the Arabs and gained control of the entire Palestinian land. In 1967, Israel destroyed most of the Egyptian, Syrian, Iraqi and Jordanian air forces in only six days, mainly due to its deep penetration in the power corridors of the Arab countries. By the end of the 1967 war, Israel had control of the Gaza Strip, the West Bank (including East Jerusalem) as well as the strategically important Sinai Peninsula (Egypt), Shebaa farms (Lebanon) and the Golan Heights (Syria).

After the 1973 Arab-Israel war, Israel started engaging its foes in negotiations separately. Resultantly, Egypt signed the Camp David Accord in 1978 with Israel and separated itself from the Palestinian struggle. Iraq one of Israels implacable foes was literally destroyed by the US and its allies in the 1991 Gulf War. Iraqs nuclear capability was already neutralised in an Israeli strike on its nuclear facility in June 1981.

In 1982, Israel occupied South Lebanon, a Shia Muslim majority area. The people of South Lebanon were already preparing to fight Israel under a Shia Muslim cleric, Imam Musa Al-Sadar, a graduate of Tehran University in Islamic jurisprudence and political sciences, and an alumni of hawza (a Shia seminary of the traditional Islamic school of higher learning) Qom in Iran. In 1974, Imam Musa Al-Sadar established the Harakat al-Mahrumin (Movement of the Deprived), a welfare organisation. In 1975, the military wing of Harakat al-Mahrumin, popularly known as amal, was established. Later, in 1979, after the successful revolution in Iran, the dissidents from amal and other Shia organisations, under the auspices of Ayatollah Khomeini, unanimously laid the foundations of Hezbollah (Party of God) in Lebanon.

Ayatollah Khomeini ordered the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC) to train Hezbollah. Syria agreed to allow the passage of the first 1,500 strong IRGC contingent to Lebanon. Training camps were established in the southern Baqaa valley in Lebanon. A significant number of young men were imparted military as well as spiritual training. Dr Mustafa Chamran, an IRGC commander and a PhD in electrical engineering and plasma physics from the University of California, under the orders of Ayatollah Khomeini, played a vital role in the ideological and military foundations of Hezbollah. In 1983, Hezbollah carried out the Beirut barracks bombing that killed 265 US marines and forced the Multinational Force in Lebanon to withdraw from Beirut.

Hezbollah kept engaging Israel and its allies in Lebanon and forced Israel to leave South Lebanon in 2000. The victory was celebrated by the whole Arab world as a major triumph against Israel and enhanced Hezbollahs stature as an Arab army fighting against Israel.

After the Arabs backed off from the Palestinian struggle, the PLO kept its political and armed struggle alive against Israel until Yasser Arafat signed the Oslo Accords in 1993. The Oslo Accords marked the start of the Oslo Process, a peace process that is aimed at achieving a peace treaty based on the UN Security Council Resolution 242 and 338 and to fulfil the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination. As a result of the Oslo Accords, the PLO recognised Israel and abandoned its armed struggle. In October 1994, Israel successfully struck a peace deal with Jordan by signing a peace agreement and, thus, Jordon formally recognised Israel. The US and Israel were successful in neutralising the Arab armed struggle against Israel.

Iran, Syria and Hezbollah created a new alliance against Israel and US interests in the region. Hamas, the Palestinian militant group established in 1987, also joined the anti-Israel alliance that later termed itself the Resistance Front. Later, this alliance proved instrumental against Israel. Israel had to face the second intifada (popular Palestinian uprising), two confrontations with Hamas in the Gaza strip (in 2006 and 2009) and the 2006 Israel-Hezbollah war. Israel was also forced to free thousands of Arab prisoners. In all these confrontations, Tehran was the brain, Damascus was the heart and Hezbollah, Hamas and Islamic jihad were the veritable arms of Iran, with popular support in the Arab world.

Despite several efforts by Israel to wipe out Hezbollah, Hamas and Islamic jihad completely, Israel failed to do so, enhancing their popularity in the Arab world. There was no more an invincible Israel. Strategists in Israel realised that unless Syria, the backbone of the resistance, is removed from the equation and Tehran is stopped from passing weapons and other strategic help through Damascus, they would not succeed in eliminating Hezbollah and Hamas completely.

The US Arab allies like Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Qatar, Oman and Egypt also felt threatened by the growing influence of Tehran in Baghdad, Manama, Sanaa, Damascus, Beirut and on the Arab street in general. Turkey too felt boxed out in the current scenario. Anxiety among the Arabs and sense of insecurity in Israelis aligned them towards a covert alliance. The 2011 unrest in Syria was utilised and the Syrian opposition was overtly supported. The German weekly Der Spiegel claimed in March 2013 that the US trained Syrian anti-government fighters in Jordan. US Senator John McCain was photographed with Syrian fighters in May 2013 in Syria. Later, many of these militants joined hands with the Islamic State (IS). The close cooperation between the Arabs and Israel is evident from the Times of Israel story published on February 25, 2015 that claimed Saudi Arabia is prepared to let Israeli fighter jets use its airspace if it proves necessary to attack Irans nuclear programme. The Saudi authorities are completely coordinated with Israel on all matters related to Iran, the European official in Brussels said.

Iran and Hezbollah, on the other hand, are overtly fighting in Syria to save Bashar Al-Assad as, according to Ali Akbar Velayati, an advisor to Irans supreme leader, Syria plays a major role in the Resistance Front of anti-Israel states and militant groups. Irans IRGC Commander General Qasim Sulemai is reportedly commanding operations both in Iraq and Syria. The role of Hezbollah in the Al-Qusayr fight and the killing of Iranian generals and Hezbollahs key personnel in Quneitra, Syria, has removed any doubts regarding the overt role of both Iran and Hezbollah in Syria.

The recent admission of General Wesley Clark, the supreme allied commander Europe of NATO, from 1997 to 2000, that IS was created by the USs allies in a bid to counter the Lebanese movement of Hezbollah and Iran, quite clearly suggests that Iran and Israel are the actual foes and the battleground is the whole of the Persian Gulf and the Middle East. The other key players in the region are allies of either Israel or Iran.

The writer is a freelance columnist, technologist and a passionate speaker and writer. He tweets at @kashifaliraza and can be reached at meetkashi514@gmail.comUkraine, Russia and the westUkraines portrayal as a freedom loving country fighting for its sovereignty is grossly exaggerated. It is an economic basket case

S P Seth March 11, 2015 Be First To Comment

Let us face it. The continuing crisis in Ukraine has the potential of developing into a major conflagration with disastrous consequences, notwithstanding the recent peace deal. And this is because the parties to the conflict in Ukraine have the direct or indirect support of some of the most powerful countries in the world. The reference here is to the US/NATO/European bloc with all its economic and military power. On the other side is Russia, though not with the same economic prowess but determined to safeguard its strategic sphere against any further encroachment close to its borders, perceived as a security threat. Not long ago, President Vladimir Putin had warned the US-led western bloc not to mess with Russia with its nuclear arsenal.

After the Soviet Unions collapse, NATO (and the EU) have expanded to include the Baltic states, once part of the Soviet Union, and its former defence partners in the Warsaw Pact, like Poland. These relatively new NATO members simultaneously feel secure (under NATO) and insecure that it might invite a Russian counter-response at some indeterminate time. To insure against their perpetual sense of insecurity they seek even greater NATO security commitments. Some of them, like Poland and the Czech republic, want US missile and radar facilities on their sites to ensure that Washington is tightly involved in their defence. NATO is now putting together a rapid reaction force, initially of 5,000 personnel that might be expanded later, to assure NATO members bordering Russia that they will be protected.

Both Russia and NATO/EU have their own narratives about the Ukrainian crisis. Moscow believes that the then democratically elected President Viktor Yanukovych was overthrown in a coup stage-managed by the US, pointing specifically to the presence of CIA Chief John Brennan in Kiev. The alternative regime in Ukraine that followed was very keen on integrating with the EU and, over time, on joining NATO. In the process, the resulting political polarisation between the Russian-speaking people in eastern Ukraine, keen to maintain close ties with Russia, and the Kiev regime made any political resolution difficult, with Moscow prepared to support eastern rebels politically and with weapons, though it denies the latter. The ongoing civil war has cost more than 6,000 lives with some of the major eastern centres looking like ghost towns and both the Kiev regime and pro-Russian separatists targeting civilians.

On the other hand, the western narrative focuses largely on Russias role in fostering, fomenting and aiding, including with arms and personnel, Ukrainian separatism and an attack on its sovereignty and territorial integrity. Indeed, Russia at times is accused of committing aggression against Ukraine and indirectly against Europe. George Soros, a prominent US public intellectual and a well-known hedge fund manager, writes in a recent issue of the New York Review of Books: Europe needs to wake up and recognise that it is under attack from Russia and urges the provision of financial and military aid for the Kiev regime.

The US has recently indicated that it is considering military aid for Ukraine to fight the separatists but it has not yet found support among prominent European countries like Germany and France. Germanys Chancellor Angela Merkel believes that it will only complicate and worsen the situation. Therefore, so far, the western bloc is following a policy amounting basically to an economic blockade of Russia. President Obama is threatening more sanctions unless Russia backs off. The recent diplomatic initiative by Chancellor Angela Merkel and President Francois Hollande of France has led to a broad peace agreement for Ukraine. Announcing the new peace plan, hammered out between the leaders of Germany, France, Russia and Ukraine in Minsk, Belarus, Putin said, We have agreed on a ceasefire from midnight February 15. He added, There is also the political settlement. The first thing is constitutional reform that should take into consideration the legitimate rights of people who live in Donbass (eastern Ukraine). There are also border issues. Finally, there is a whole range of economic and humanitarian issues.

A good look at Putins summation of the agreement would suggest that it is more like a catalogue of unsolved issues that lie at the heart of the Ukrainian crisis, without laying down a detailed pathway to peace. Unless there is a concrete blueprint to tackle the underlying issues in an orderly and time-bound framework, the new agreement is likely to go the way of the first Minsk peace plan. The previous ceasefire negotiated in September, also in Minsk, collapsed almost immediately after the deal. Since then, the Ukrainian separatists have advanced their positions to consolidate their hold on some of the important transport hubs. As for constitutional reform to grant autonomy to eastern Ukraine, Kievs understanding of it is to somehow fudge the issue while the rebels settle for nothing less than a virtual, independent state aligned with Russia, basically an extended Russian zone of influence.

While the new peace plan is a helpful development if it holds, the chances of its going much further are rather dubious. In that case, it would lead to even more western sanctions against Russia. As it is Russias economy is hurting from both western sanctions and the plunge in global oil prices, an important revenue source for the country. With its foreign exchange reserves depleting, Russia is going to face some serious economic problems that might create difficult political issues for the regime. The Putin regime is going to frame this crisis as it is already doing as a western threat to its security and rally people around a patriotic cause. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, also blamed on the west, this new threat to Russias security might rally many patriotic Russians behind the regime, at least in the short term.

Putin has indicated that there will be economic difficulties for about two years. He obviously hopes that Russians can weather this crisis for that period. There is some basis for this. First, Ukraines portrayal as a freedom loving country fighting for its sovereignty is grossly exaggerated. It is an economic basket case, corruption-ridden and a good chunk of the governing coalition has a fascist background. Even with all the money thrown at it by western institutions, it is unlikely to become economically functional. As George Soros, who is a great proponent of economic sanctions against Russia and military and economic aid to Ukraine has pointed out, A Russian default (resulting from western sanctions) could cause considerable disruption in the global financial system with the euro area being particularly vulnerable. He adds, Russia is in the midst of a financial crisis, which is helping to turn the threat of deflation in the Eurozone into a reality.

In other words, sanctions are not just hurting Russia but also Europe, though not as severely. And, above all, if the Ukrainian crisis escalates, despite the recent peace proposals, it has the great potential of developing into some sort of military confrontation between Russia and the west with Ukraine as its epicentre. It is, therefore, imperative for cool heads on both sides to de-escalate the situation by taking into account Russias strategic concerns as part of a wider settlement.

The writer is a senior journalist and academic based in Sydney, Australia. He can be reached at sushilpseth@yahoo.co.auCHINA-INDIA TIES AT WHAT EXPENSE?Kuldip NayarWednesday, March 11, 2015- FULL marks to the arrogance of China! It summons the Indian envoy at Beijing and conveys its displeasure over the visit of PrimeMinisterNarendra Modi to Arunachal Pradesh. Theterritoryis part of India and was never claimedby Chinatill some years ago when it attained the military prowess worth the name. Beijing told our ambassador Ashok Kantha that Modis visit undermined Chinas territorial sovereigntyright andinterests. Not long ago, Beijing had begun stapling visas of the people of Arunachal visiting China to indicate that it was a differentterritoryas if it was not part of India.

New Delhi has borne the humiliation quietly then and has done it so now after the Indian PrimeMinisterhas visited part of his own country. This is, however, the first time that Beijing has publicly expressed its unhappiness. It has in the past accepted without demur the maps showing Arunachal Pradesh as Indiasterritory. So far the dispute has been over a smallterritorybetween Arunachal and the China border. The status of Arunachal has been seldom questioned. Again it is a part of arrogance when the important message is conveyed through Chinese vice-ForeignMinisterLiu Zhenmin, who says: Modis visit undermined Chinas territorial sovereignty,right andinterests. Such act by the Indian side artificially amplified differences between the twocountrieson the border issue and thus went against the principles and consensus that the two sides reached on properly addressing the issue.

Thus far New Delhi has stood firm to the appreciation of the country. It has rightly gone to the extent of saying that the PrimeMinisterwould be visiting Arunachal again. The message would have gone home clearly if New Delhi had announced the date also. True, the PrimeMinisters engagements have to be scheduled beforehand. But a departure could have been made in view of the importance of the problem. The message would have been loud and clear. In fact, the BJP, if not thegovernment, should have inspired a debate whether the PrimeMinistershould visit China in May, as scheduled, to convey nations annoyance as well as concern. That India cannot be taken for granted is something China should be made to realize.

Probably, New Delhi does not face the rumpus it would cause if the PMs visit is postponed, if not cancelled. But China has given enough of provocation to make India reconsider the visit. Chinas arrogance should not go without being rebutted. Matters about theterritoryrelate to Indias sovereignty as they should not be taken lightly. PrimeMinisterModi should find an early opportunity to tell China that the territorial integrity was not dependent on relations between New Delhi and Beijing. In fact, it is the other way round. The future of Sino-India relations would improve if there was a consensus on each others sensitivity over the territorial sovereignty. China is in occupation of a substantial part of IndianTerritoryin the northeast.

New Delhis suspicion of Chinas aggrandizement was well founded because India has been prey to the betrayal of trust. In a letter to state chief ministers, Indias first PrimeMinisterJawaharlal Nehru said: If we cannot have a real peace and cooperation between nations inthe world, the next big thing is to try and avoid the outbreak of war on a large scale in the hope that this may givethe worldan opportunity some time later of arriving at peaceful settlements. If however war broke out, then we shall keep out of it also. It will be some gain if a part of the earths surface is kept out of this terrific conflict between giants. This is the reason why we have refused to align ourselves with either of the two great power blocks and why we are not agreeable to joining either the Middle East Defence Organisation or theSouth East AsiaoneWe live now onwards in a war atmosphere and wish all energies of many nations turned towards war production.

Still Nehru was one person who at that time could avert the conflict and he did. Modi does not enjoy the same status inthe world, nor has he the vision. Yet he is in a position to stall, with the help of the newly-won friend, President Barrack Obama. The ambition of Beijing to dominatethe worldaffairs is nothing new. It has always wanted to be a Sultan and treatthe worldas its durbar. I recall how angry were the former army generals at Beijing where I touched upon at a meeting that China was still in control of Indiasterritory. Their reply was hawkish when they said: You have forgotten the lesson we taught you in 1962. Nehru was wrong in recognizing Tibet as part of China. By doing so, he probably thought that he would strengthen his relations with Beijing. But its then PrimeMinister, Chou En-Lai, was only exploiting Nehrus contacts to be known inthe world. Once his purpose was served, Chou En-Lai showed his real face when he attacked India in 1962. By all means we should have good relations with China but not at expense of ourterritory. What purpose would Modis visit serve when Beijing is not willing to recognize Arunachal Pradesh as part of ourterritory? It is still not too late to make China realize that it cannot get away with the insult it heaps on India by not recognizing Arunachal Pradesh as an integral part of our country.

Relations between India and China are important for peace in the region. But China has to be as much sincere as India has been. But one gets a feeling that Beijing wants to talk from the point of strength and can see its efforts to encircle India. It has given a generous assistance to Nepal and is in the process of setting up a port at Sri Lanka. Beijing is also trying to win over Myanmar. India would be the last country to object to good relations with its neighbours. But if the intention is to use them as a lever to pressure New Delhi, it smacks of ulterior motive. This does not speak offriendship, which India wants to cultivate.

The writer is a veteran Indian journalist, syndicated columnist, human rights activist and author.INDIAS SQUEEZE PAKISTAN STRATEGYIqbal KhanWednesday, March 11, 2015- ADVISER to PrimeMinisteron National Security andForeign AffairsSartaj Aziz has said that Indian PrimeMinisterNarendra Modi will certainly visit Pakistan next year. We are fully hopeful that the Indian primeministerwill come to Pakistan for the SAARC summit. He added that though there was no breakthrough during Indian Foreign Secretary S Jaishankars recent visit, there was headway for the next meeting between the two foreign secretaries and the duo could meet again. Pakistan wants to resolve all outstanding issues with India, including Kashmir, through dialogue. There is need for comprehensive dialogue process between the two countries to address all outstanding issues. Lack of trust between the two countries is a major issue and there is not likely to be any worthwhile progress on other issues unless the trust isgraduallyrestored.

The menace of terrorism is a known problem that affects most of the countries ofthe world, including this region. Pakistan also has its concerns on this issue, these were elaborately articulated during the talks, especially the persistent Indian involvement that ferments terrorism in Pakistan, more so in FATA and Balochistan. While India talked about trial of those allegedly involved in Mumbai attacks, Pakistan reminded India that investigations about bombing of Samjhota expressthat took placemuch earlier than Mumbai attacks has not ended-up anywhere close to conclusion and that those who have made self-incriminating confessions are out on bail. Pakistan has suffered the most because of terrorism; and has done more than any other country to counter terrorism. Pakistan expects similar approach from other countries. As regards blaming Pakistan, it is not a good approach to blame every terrorist attack on Pakistan right on the onset of the event. Pakistan expects that thorough investigations should be conducted before any finger pointing. Blowing off of a smugglers boat by Indiancoast guardsin December 2014 is the latest example the way India jumps the gun.

Another important issue between the two countries is right of self-determination by the people of Jammu and Kashmir, who are larger in number than 123 currently independent nations and have a defined historical identity. They are, at present, engaged in a massive, indigenous and non violent struggle to win their freedom from the foreign occupation of their land. Relevance of the principle of self-determination to the specific case of Jammu and Kashmir has been, time and again, recognized by the United Nations. It was upheld equally by India and Pakistan when the Kashmir dispute was brought before the UN Security Council by India. The two countries entered into an agreement to allow the people of Jammu and Kashmir to exercise their right of self-determination under impartial auspices and in conditions free from coercion from either side.

Envoys from India and Pakistan agreed to narrow differences and find common ground, both Jaishankar and, Aizaz Chaudhry, stressed the need to work together; but there was no decision on whether the meeting would result in future negotiations. Indian Foreign Secretarys two-day visit marked the first high-level meeting between India and Pakistan since talks were disrupted by India last year. We engaged on each others concerns and interests in an open manner. We agreed to work together to find common ground and narrow differences, Jaishankar said. The overall tone of meeting was positiveWe need to make a concerted effort to resolve this dispute, he said.

Jaishankar said that Pakistan will be the next Chairman of the SAARC and India wants to see the forum as successful. He also met Pakistani PrimeMinisterand delivereda letter fromPrime Minster Narendra Modi; both sides were tight-lipped about the contents of Modis letter, sources said it focused on the need to rebuild peaceful, friendly ties between the two nations by removing trust deficit. PrimeMinisterNawaz Sharifsaid in a statement that both countries need to start a new chapter in their relationship. The visit of the senior Indian diplomat is seen in Pakistan as a move to revive the stalled Composite Dialogue process between the two neighbours. India is also hoping to revive regular contacts between the border security forces on both sides to ensure peace on the border. A BSF-Pak Rangers consultation mechanism may be restarted, as well as other conversations. We agreed that ensuring peace and tranquillity on the border was vital, Jaishankar said. Pakistan also sought to keep the focus on Kashmir in the talks.

India wants to replicate the China border template with Pakistan. That is, intensify interactions between security forces and even DGMOs that would bring in a more peaceful border. The firing on the border, the Indian government has concluded, is proving to be a big hindrance to normalizing bilateral ties, and that 2003 ceasefire arrangement has been one of the biggest confidence buildingmeasuresin operation. This ceasefire has unravelled since early 2013 with regular provocative firing by India, extending from the LOC to the international boundary. One of the first things that India wants to restore could be cross-LOC CBMs and agree to opening up more roads like the Kargil-Skardu, more border trade and more popular contacts. With a BJP-PDP government in operation in Jammu & Kashmir, there is greater incentive for India now to quieten the border.

A second message Jaishankar took with him to Pakistan concerned SAARC, which is a personal imperative of the Modi. I conveyed the expectations of our leadership on SAARC and their determination to forge a cooperative relationship with all our neighbours. We discussed ideas and initiatives to take SAARC forward. Pakistan will be the next SAARC Chair and India would like to work with Pakistan to help SAARC achieve its potential. India has conveyed to Pakistan that connectivity and trade would be implemented in the SAARC region, even if Pakistan chose to stay away. India is pushing the Bangladesh-Bhutan-India-Nepal (BBIN) sub-grouping to clear hurdles to connectivity between these four countries to pressurise Pakistan. Modiwill makethe pledges during a visit to Sri Lanka, Mauritius and Seychelles. New Delhi is hoping to tie the islands into a closer security embrace. India has a role as a net security provider in the IndianOceanregion, said a defenceofficialinvolved in preparations for Modis trip.

Modi is well on its way for implementing two-pronged strategy to squeeze Pakistan. He wants to bypass Pakistan within SAARC and create conditions that Pakistan softens its stance on core issues like Kashmir and provision of trade openings to India towards West and Central Asia without any reciprocal concessions.

The writer is consultant to IPRI on Policy and Strategic Response.OpinionKhilafahDr Javed Ahmad GhamidiWednesday, March 11, 2015From Print Edition211441

It is an undeniable fact that for the past many centuries, the word khilafah is being used. However, it is certainly not a religious term. Religious terms cannot be coined by scholars like Razi, Ghazali, Mawardi, Ibn Haazm and Ibn Khuldun. Similarly, not every word that Mulims start using in a particular sense becomes a religious term.

On the contrary, religious terms can only be coined by God and His messengers, and are acceptable only when their meaning as a term is validated from the Quran and Hadith or other divine scriptures. Words such as sawm, salah, hajj and umrah etc are regarded as religions terms because God and His messengers have accorded them this status, and have used them at various instances as terms. On the other hand, the word khilafah is of the Arabic language and means vicegerency, succession, and political authority, It is used as a common Arabic word in one of these meanings at all places in the Quran and Hadith. It may be noted that certain verses of the Quran have generally been cited to convince people that they are used as terms.

In all such verses, people have not translated the words khilafah in the translation of the verses and have kept them intact in their original Arabic form. By doing this they want to give the impression that these words have been used as terms. If all these verses are looked up in any authentic translation, one will be at a loss to understand how this inference was made, just as one of my critics seems to be at a loss at the inferences made by me.

Presented below are the translations of two very competent scholars:

Verse 40 of Surah Baqarah: 1.

And when your Lord said to the angels: I have to make a naib (deputy) in the earth. (Shah Abd al-Qadir)

And when your Lord told the angels: I will make a naib (deputy) in the earth. (Mahmud al-Hasan)

2. Verse 26 of Surah Suad:

O David! We have made you a naib (deputy) in the country; so govern people with justice. (Shah Abd al-Qadir)

O David! We have made you a naib (deputy) in the country; so govern people with justice. (Mahmud al-Hasan)

3. Verse 55 of Surah Nur:

God has promised that those among you who have accepted faith and have done righteous deeds, in fact He will in the coming times make them hakim (rulers) in the country the way He made hakim (rulers) those prior to them. (Shah Abd al-Qadir)

God has promised those among you who have accepted faith and have done righteous deeds, in fact He will in the coming times make them hakim in the country the way He made rulers those prior to them. (Mahmud al-Hasan)

The words naib and hakim used in these verses are translation of the Arabic words khalifah and istikhlaf, and it is quite evident that they do not have any religious connotation in them except if a person claims that every word used in the Quran becomes a religious term.

Similar is the case with the Ahadith and Athar. The word khalifah and all its derivatives are used in them in the same meanings as the ones stated earlier. So much so that in one Hadith, the word khalifah is used for God Himself in the meaning of successor. It is for this very reason that when meanings such as rightly guided government or government in accordance with the way of Prophethood need to be expressed, then words such as rashidah and ala minhaj al-nubuwwah have to be appended with the word khilafah. By regarding such appended words to be understood with the word khilafah, our scholars have made khilafah a term.

As such, it is a term of political science and sociology of the Muslims just as the words fiqh, kalam, hadith etc have become terms but it cannot be regarded as a religious term. No one except God and His Messenger has the authority to coin a religious term. This is solely their prerogative. If some word is regarded as a religious term, then it has to be deduced from the words of these two authorities. It cannot be adduced from works like the Muqaddimah of Ibn Khaldun.

As far as the view that according to Islam there should be only one global government in the world is concerned, it is evident to every person of learning that the Quran is absolutely devoid of any such directive. Two Ahadith are, however, cited in favour of this view. One of them is: Gods Messenger (sws) is reported to have said that prophets ruled the Israelites; so, when one of them passed away, another would take his place; but there is no prophet after me; however, there will be rulers and they will be plenty. It was asked: What is your directive about them O Prophet! He replied: Fulfil your oath of allegiance with the first one and then with the one who is the first after him, (Bukhari no. 3455; Muslim, no. 1842).

The second Hadith is: When the oath of allegiance is pledged to two rulers, kill the second one (Muslim, no. 1853). Though this second narrative is not sound as far as its chain of narration is concerned, yet even if it is regarded to be correct, it is an incontestable reality that none of these Ahadith state in any sense what has been derived from them. What is said in these narratives is that if Muslims pledge their oath of allegiance to a ruler and then another person rebels against him and invites people to pledge allegiance to him, then each Muslim should adhere to his first oath of allegiance. Moreover, if the second person claims to be their ruler and some people even pledge their oath of allegiance to him, then he should be executed.

Such is the nature of these directives that their cogency can be made evident to every person. Thus, after the demise of the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) when a member of the Ansar tribe suggested that a ruler each from the Ansar and the Muhajirun should be appointed, Umar (RA) on this very principle opined that two swords cannot exist in one sheathe, and Aba Bakr (RA) also cautioned people at this instance that a state can only have one ruler. This is because such an arrangement will result in severe differences, disorder instead of order will arise and the discipline of the state will be ruined, and instead of [following] the way on which the Prophet (pbuh) left his people this religious innovation that one state will be governed by two rulers will emerge. (Al-Bayhaqi, Al-Sunan al-kubra, no. 16549, 16550)

If the ascription of these Ahadith to the Prophet (pbuh) is correct, then they imply what has been explained above. No logic can adduce from them that Islam has directed its followers to set up a single government in the whole world. Similarly, no reasoning can deduce from these narratives that if the adherents of Islam are able to convert the majority of people of other countries to Islam, they cannot set up their own government and if they do so, as in the case of todays fifty-odd Muslims countries, they will be regarded as sinners.

Scholars of Islam must bear in mind that the precepts of Gods religion must remain pure and unaltered. No scholar, jurist or Hadith doctor has the authority to make people liable for a directive for which the Almighty has not made them liable. Hence I have written and would like to repeat that the establishment of United States of Islam based on the union of countries in which Muslims are in majority can be the desire of every person and we can also strive to fulfil this desire, but there is no basis that such a union is a directive of the Islamic Shariah, defying which Muslims would be committing a sin.

The writer is a theologian, scholar and educationist.NUST among top 100 universities in BRICS & Emerging Economies: surveyAHSAN RAZAUPDATED10 minutes ago 0 COMMENTSEMAILPRINT

The only Pakistani university featured on the list is Islamabad's National University of Science and Technology (NUST), which appeared on the BRICS & Emerging Economies Rankings 2015. Courtesy NUST website

Islamabad's National University of Science and Technology (NUST) has been listed among the top 100 universities in theBRICS & Emerging Economies Rankings 2015,published by The Times Higher Education (THE).THE, a leading UK-based magazine, published the 2015THE World Reputation Rankings the leading list of the worlds 100 most prestigious universities, based on the largest invitation-only survey of senior academics across the world.The list includes the top 100 universities of the world,100 Asian universitiesand 100 universities from the BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa) and emerging economies.Read:NUST unveils Pakistans fastest super computerNUST is the only Pakistani university featured in the latest rankings.Harvard University retained first place on the list of the worlds most prestigious universities while Japan leads Asia in the global reputation league, but the University of Tokyo falls still further from the top ten.There is outstanding progress for Chinas leading universities with Tsinghua and Peking securing their highest ever positions but Hong Kong lost ground.The UKs Cambridge University (2nd) and Oxford (3rd) push the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) (4th) and Stanford University (5th) down.The Times Higher Education World University Rankings 2014-2015 list the best global universities. The magazine says these are the only international university performance tables to judge world-class universities across all of their core missions - teaching, research, knowledge transfer and international outlook.The top universities rankings employ 13 carefully calibrated performance indicators to provide the most comprehensive and balanced comparisons available, which are trusted by students, academics, university leaders, industry and governments.Among the 100 top ranking universities, India, Iran, China and Saudi Arabia have their share.Where do Pakistani universities stand among the world institutions?Phil Baty, editor of Times Higher Education Rankings, answers: I can reveal that several Pakistani universities were named as being among the best by our survey respondents, including University of Karachi, University of Punjab and Quaid-I-Azam, said Phil Baty in an email interview to Dawn.com.However, none of them received enough nominations to make the highly prestigious top 100 group which represents no more than about 0.5 per cent of the worlds higher education institutions.The magazine only releases the top 100 universities on this particular ranking as it judges universities based entirely on how they are perceived and respected by 10,000 senior scholars from around the world and the data differentials become very slight deeper down the list.As most of the universities are ranked on their perceived reputation, what should Pakistani universities do?When asked if interaction with international universities and siging MoU would help, Phil Baty said: As long as the MoU documents translate into real action genuine research partnerships and exchanges of faculty and of ideas they should really help Pakistan. Not only do such international collaborations help to ensure that academics learn from one another and share best practices from across the globe, which drives up standards, they also ensure that the important work being done by Pakistani universities will be better understood by international scholars, and better recognised. Too often, however, MoUs are signed and they sit in a filing cabinet without being acted upon. True global partnerships and collaborations are highly effective and good for the whole of higher education.How can Pakistani universities improve their rankings?This study is based entirely on a survey of academic opinion, where leading scholars around the world name which institutions are strongest in teaching and research. There is no way of knowing why these academics are not nominating Pakistani institutions enough.""However, many of the institutions which do not feature in the World Reputation Rankings also receive poor scores for international outlook in the Times Higher Educations main World University Rankings, published in October (which are based on 13 performance criteria). This means that they are not attracting enough international students or staff, collaborating with overseas universities enough, or publishing enough research papers in English the global language."All of these factors can influence a universitys reputation, so it is likely that by improving their international outlook Pakistani institutions can not only improve through sharing best practice globally and drawing on the global talent pool, they can also improve how they are perceived by the global academic community, as they will be much better placed to property demonstrate to the world their particular strengths. Ultimately the only way to improve in the world reputation rankings is to ensure that scholars across the world recognise you as an excellent teaching and research institution.As higher education is a serious business, universities do a lot of work to improve and retain their reputation and of course work.For the fifth year in a row, the 2015 rankings have highlighted an elite group of six US and UK super-brands that stands head and shoulders above the rest, headed by Harvard University. Cambridge University moves into second place this year (up from 4th), Oxford University takes third (up from 5th), while the Massachusetts Institute of Technology drops to fourth (from second) and Stanford University takes 5th (from 3rd). The University of California, Berkeley, holds onto 6th place.Overall, the US continues to dominate, with 26 of the top 50 places, and a total of 43 of the top 100 (down from 46 last year). After the US, the UK has the most top 100 representatives: 12, up from ten last year and nine in 2013.In the Asia-Pacific region, Australia gained ground. Its leader, the University of Melbourne, host of the THE World Academic Summit in October 2015, moved up from 43rd to joint 41st. Both the University of Sydney and Australian National University moved up from the 61-70 band to the 51-60 group.Asias number one performer is the University of Tokyo, slipping one place to 12th in the world. But it was a bad result overall for Japan, as Kyoto University slipped out of the top 20, from 19th to 27th, and Osaka University fell out of the table altogether.The World Reputation Rankings are part of the portfolio of league tables that has established Times Higher Education as the most respected provider of comparative global higher education performance data.They are based on a global invitation-only opinion poll carried out in partnership with Elsevier.The poll has attracted almost 70,000 responses from more than 150 countries in five annual rounds since the first survey in 2010. The 2015 results were drawn from 10,507 survey responses from published senior academics Policy towards IndiaASHRAF JEHANGIR QAZIPUBLISHEDa day ago 54 COMMENTSEMAILPRINT

The writer is a former ambassador to the US, India and China and head of UN missions in Iraq and Sudan.

MY previous article was about the importance of India in the context of our obligations towards our own people. This offers brief comments and perspectives on specific concerns. For so-called leaders they will be water off a ducks back! They are, accordingly, addressed to fellow Pakistanis concerned about our countrys future.The Indian foreign secretary has come and gone. Pakistan will host the Saarc summit in 2016. Modi may attend or even visit before it. That could provide an opportunity for a joint statement of intent to progressively resolve core issues and draw up a road map for better and more substantive relations. Intense joint preparations will be crucial.This will not be easy. There is zero mutual trust and even less political will. India does not feel the need to accommodate Pakistan. There is no domestic constituency for it. India sees itself as too strong for a weak and isolated Pakistan to do it any real harm. This perceived Indian arrogance and inflexibility undermines the liberal argument in Pakistan that it needs to develop a stable relationship with India in its own interest.India and Pakistan have immediate concerns. India cites the infrastructure of terrorism in Pakistan that targets it; the reluctance of Pakistan to effectively prosecute or hand over suspects in the 2008 Mumbai atrocities; and alleged infiltration of militants across the LoC.Pakistan refers to the political and human rights situation in Occupied Kashmir; the Indian refusal to negotiate a settlement of the dispute; the disproportionate Indian use of heavy artillery across the LoC and Working Boundary; and Indian political interference in Balochistan, Fata etc.There are, of course, other important issues on the suspended composite agenda. But if there is sustained movement on immediate concerns, movement on other issues becomes easier. However, attitudes and structural obstacles cannot be transcended at the bureaucratic level. Only the political leadership can enable negotiated progress on issues and their sustained implementation on the ground.Pakistan and India cannot develop mutual cordiality overnight. But they should jointly acknowledge that in the 21st century they must jointly work towards it. Addressing each others core concerns must become a priority for both countries. This will require a shared and realistic vision to guide the policies of both countries towards each other.Implementing confidence- and security-building measures; increasing economic cooperation, investment and trade; avoiding interference and conflict and strengthening procedures for this purpose; and reducing mutually hostile perceptions should become the focus of the bilateral relationship. This could set the scene for more critical progress that seems out of reach today.

Only the political leadership can enable negotiated progress on issues and their implementation.

All this is known. But it is never implemented. The blame game is easier. Zero-sum games thrive. Leadership absconds. Vested interests prevail. Public opinion is fed on negative assumptions and kept ignorant of imperatives and possibilities. Out-of-the-box or back-channel solutions are suffocated at birth. India misses opportunities. Pakistan pays the costs.Skipping details, the following are observations on issues of concern:Kashmir: Pakistan has the better case. But it has isolated itself internationally. Pakistans errors have obscured the centrality of Kashmiri human and political rights. Only a mutually acceptable settlement on the basis of these rights is feasible. The PDP-BJP alliance is not necessarily a negative development. The PDP has underlined the continuing relevance of Pakistan and the APHC. Modi has had to retreat on Article 370. In addition to UN resolutions, Pakistans position should also emphasise Article 257 of its Constitution. This could ensure harmony between Kashmiri and Pakistani positions in the event of talks with India for a compromise settlement. We need to seriously study the potential of the understandings reached in the back-channel talks of 2005-6.Terrorism: The Pakistan defence ministers statement on behalf of the Haqqani network and the Quetta Shura (the existence of which we have denied) in the context of an Afghan settlement is at odds with our statements after the Peshawar attack on the Army Public School. The foreign minister also spoke of militant organisations that had not targeted Pakistan. Are distinctions between good and bad militant violence being revived? Pakistan looks confused, fearful and unreliable. Zarb-i-Azb risks being compromised. Our credibility suffers.Mumbai: That was seven years ago, move on! This will not convince India or the international community. However, the domestic costs of bringing possible culprits to justice are considered too high. Once again our credibility suffers which is far more costly. Moreover, reports that suspects like Lakhvi are living it up in jail further damage Pakistans credibility. We seem to be our own worst enemy. The implicit argument is that those who may have been involved are too powerful to touch, and India should understand this! Well, it does. Accordingly, it sticks to maximalist positions which rule out compromise and progress.LoC: The Indians misread the Shimla Agreement when they say it replaces UN resolutions on Kashmir. But it does require neither side to unilaterally change the situation on the ground. India violated Shimla on Siachen in 1984, and in 1999 we did the same in Kargil. We should both respect the 2003 LoC cease-fire agreement. Infiltration may keep the pot boiling in India-held Kashmir and lock up Indian forces. But it neither contributes towards a Kashmir settlement nor does it alleviate the human rights disaster for the Kashmiris. It also undermines Pakistans credibility in the so-called war on terror.Balochistan: India denies allegations of its interference. Pakistan has not produced sufficient evidence in support of its charges. Nevertheless, India is probably involved in retaliation for its perception of Pakistani interference in India-held Kashmir and India itself. The solution in Balochistan is fair and inclusive development and governance. That would reduce political alienation. This, of course, is studiously ignored.Conclusion: Indias actions and policies, however provocative, should not lead us into irrational, irresponsible and inefficient responses. That might satisfy vested interests and raw emotion. But Pakistan loses every time. The record shows it. Even nuclear weapons cannot compensate for immature, stupid and self-serving leadership.The writer is a former ambassador to the US, India and China and head of UN missions in Iraq and Sudan.who reported an average of 15 years working in higher education.ntegrity and Spine Act, 2015BABAR SATTARPUBLISHED2 days ago 20 COMMENTSEMAILPRINT

The writer is a lawyer.

WERE our Senate elections an utter disgrace because the Election Commission didnt function as a stricter schoolmaster? Should it have placed metallic chips in ballot papers and made MPs walk-thorough scanners to ensure that they didnt sneak their votes out for loyalty verification? Should there be a law that says that midnight laws and orders will be considered a breach of the law itself? Should our Constitution address minutest details such as ungodly hours when laws must not be passed?Laws exist to guide conduct within a society. They are published and are generally prospective in nature so that people know what the law is and can order their lives accordingly. But what if people dont feel obliged to follow the law or think of it merely as a device to control others? Can you ensure by writing effective laws that public office holders will be men and women of integrity and decency? Can you think up a magical constitutional amendment that will force public fiduciaries and representatives to do the right thing?After our accountability and anti-corruption laws, sadiq and ameen qualifications in our Constitution, the never-ending debates about credentials of gatekeepers of the democratic project (election commissioners, judges etc.), can we, as a last resort, also draft a Mandatory Spine Act and a Prohibition Against Doing the Wrong Thing Act? And once those too fail to cure our greed and predatory and boorish instincts, we can initiate a debate about why our society is failing to produce decent people.

The law is merely a tool. We can quarrel with it, but that wont make us good workmen.

The law is merely a tool. We can quarrel with it, but that wont make us good workmen. In order for the law to be effective it must be considered normative ie people must view it as a compelling reason to act in a certain way. In a rule-of-law society you can be critical of the utility of a red light. But you must still stop when the light is red. And if you break the light (even in an emergency to rush to hospital etc) and are fined, you must be willing to pay such fine as legitimate sanction.But what if most road users dont think stopping on a red light is necessary, even though they know the law requires them to do so? You can ask traffic wardens to enforce the red light. What if wardens too think that breaking a signal is no life-shattering event and selectively enforce the rule depending on whether the rule breaker is weak or powerful? What if those who stop at red lights out of habit or fear of challan also reconcile with others who dont and also with the unfair wardens? How do you then write a law that makes red lights meaningful?We speak of rule-of-law societies (and not states) and law-abiding citizens as rule of law, to be effective, depends on a positive social attitude towards the law. Can the law be meaningful if a majority thinks abiding by it is not necessary or that not abiding by it will bring no harm to them? Will the law be considered fair if it is selectively enforced, or if there is a shared general assumption that the law is a tool for coercion and no assumption of bona fide attaches to intentions of public representatives who frame and approve laws?Are we a rule-of-law society and a democratic polity? Consider recent evidence. Last week the Supreme Court held proceedings till late in the evening issuing sermons and threats to get the federal and provincial governments to agree to a timetable for local bodies elections. It didnt happen without the melodrama even though Article 140A unambiguously requires provinces to establish local governments and devolve political, administrative and financial responsibility and authority to the elected representatives of the local governments.The president issued a midnight order changing the manner in which Fata was to elect senators. If someone had arbitrarily changed in the dark of the night the breakfast menu the Sharifs had agreed to an evening before, there would probably be hangings inside Raiwind Palace. Does the PML-N really not know that issuing midnight decrees (notwithstanding their content) to tailor election outcomes is no way to run a country? If all power wielders are convinced that discretion must always be abused to promote self-interest, can black-letter law still save us?We have an entire chapter within the Constitution that discriminates against tribal areas denying them democracy and rule of law: Article 247 ousts the jurisdiction of parliament and the provincial assemblies in relation to the tribal areas, it denies tribal citizens the right to petition courts to enforce their fundamental rights, and vests in the president and governors arbitrary authority to administer Fata that is routinely abused. Do we not know that this is wrong? Can we deny people their rights and expect them to be loyal citizens?Our democracy is supposed to function on a one-person-one-vote basis. It is on the basis of population numbers that constituencies are delimited. It is on this basis that the National Finance Commission is to distribute funds between the centre and provinces and seats in parliament are to be allocated to provinces. Our Constitution promises mandatory education to our kids. Can such promise be given effect if we dont know how many kids there are and where they live? Do we not know that not holding a census it not just illegal but also ridiculous?If democracy limps on, the assemblies that have just elected senators in 2015 will also be the ones to elect senators in 2018. In other words, votes cast by ordinary folk in May 2013 will continue to determine who sits in the Senate up until 2024. Does this make any sense?We need urgent electoral reform. We need empowered local bodies. We need a census. We need to end Fatas discriminatory status. We need to fix our broken justice system. We need to start enforcing our laws. Then we need to start improving them. But first we need candid admission: the fault is not in our stars but in us.