“Mutual fear needs to be addressed. I had long discussions,” Sharif told reporters, adding that they extended invitations to visit each other’s countries.

Relations between Pakistan and India have improved in recent years but ties are still held back by mutual suspicion.

Sharif may not win enough seats to rule on his own but has made enough gains to avoid having to form a coalition with his main rivals, former cricketer Imran Khan’s Tehrik-i-Insaf (PTI) and the Pakistan People’s Party (PPP).

“I am not against any coalition. But as far as Islamabad is concerned we are ourselves in a position to form our own government,” said Sharif. “All those who share our vision we will be happy to work with them.”

Sharif will inherit a host of challenges from the PPP, which failed to tackle corruption, poverty, and a Taliban insurgency during its rule over the past five years.

Pakistan’s fragile economy is likely to need another bailout from the International Monetary Fund to avoid another balance of payments crisis.

Sharif has suggested he would be willing to implement politically sensitive reforms in order to secure billions of dollars from the global lender.

Sharif has picked senator Ishaq Dar as his finance minister in the new cabinet that he is putting together after leading his party back to power, a party spokesman said.

Dar, who served as finance minister in a previous Sharif cabinet in the 1990s, has said he plans to push provincial governments to collect agricultural taxes, a policy that could set him on a collision course with some of the Pakistan Muslim League’s (PML-N) wealthy backers.

While an improvement in revenue collection is seen as vital, analysts say any sustainable gains for Pakistan’s economy would have to come through normalizing relations with India.

Turning to Pakistan’s thorny relationship with the United States, Sharif said “we need to listen to each other”.

Anti-American sentiment runs high in Pakistan, where U.S. drone strikes are seen as a violation of sovereignty.

“I think we have good relations with the United States of America. We need to listen to each other,” said Sharif.

(Editing by Robert Birsel)

“Mutual fear needs to be addressed. I had long discussions,” Sharif told reporters, adding that they extended invitations to visit each other’s countries.

Relations between Pakistan and India have improved in recent years but ties are still held back by mutual suspicion.

Sharif may not win enough seats to rule on his own but has made enough gains to avoid having to form a coalition with his main rivals, former cricketer Imran Khan’s Tehrik-i-Insaf (PTI) and the Pakistan People’s Party (PPP).

“I am not against any coalition. But as far as Islamabad is concerned we are ourselves in a position to form our own government,” said Sharif. “All those who share our vision we will be happy to work with them.”

Sharif will inherit a host of challenges from the PPP, which failed to tackle corruption, poverty, and a Taliban insurgency during its rule over the past five years.

Pakistan’s fragile economy is likely to need another bailout from the International Monetary Fund to avoid another balance of payments crisis.

Sharif has suggested he would be willing to implement politically sensitive reforms in order to secure billions of dollars from the global lender.

Sharif has picked senator Ishaq Dar as his finance minister in the new cabinet that he is putting together after leading his party back to power, a party spokesman said.

Dar, who served as finance minister in a previous Sharif cabinet in the 1990s, has said he plans to push provincial governments to collect agricultural taxes, a policy that could set him on a collision course with some of the Pakistan Muslim League’s (PML-N) wealthy backers.

While an improvement in revenue collection is seen as vital, analysts say any sustainable gains for Pakistan’s economy would have to come through normalising relations with India.

Turning to Pakistan’s thorny relationship with the United States, Sharif said “we need to listen to each other”.

Anti-American sentiment runs high in Pakistan, where U.S. drone strikes are seen as a violation of sovereignty.

“I think we have good relations with the United States of America. We need to listen to each other,” said Sharif.

(Editig by Robert Birsel)

The polls were a landmark, marking the first time one elected government will replace another. But the vote failed to realise the hopes of many that dynastic politics would end after years of misrule and corruption.

The wealthy steel magnate from the pivotal Punjab province held off a challenge from former cricket star Imran Khan who had hoped to break decades of dominance by Sharif and the Pakistan People’s Party led by the Bhutto family.

Sharif, 63, declared victory in a jubilant speech to supporters as results from Saturday’s election showed a overwhelming lead for his party.

“Results are still coming in, but this much is confirmed: we’re the single largest party so far,” he declared to hoots of joy from the crowd in Punjab’s capital, Lahore.

“Please pray that by morning we’re in a position that we don’t need the crutch of coalition partners.”

Despite pre-election violence and attacks on Saturday that killed at least 17 people, millions turned out to cast their ballot in a milestone election for a country that has been ruled by the military for more than half of its turbulent history.

With the count continuing into the night, Sharif’s Pakistan Muslim League – Nawaz (PML-N) was leading in 119 of the 272 National Assembly seats that were contested.

His party may not have enough seats to rule on its own and may be forced into a coalition, which could make it difficult to push reforms desperately needed to revive a near-failed economy.

Sharif, who advocates free-market economics, is likely to pursue privatisation and deregulation to revive flagging growth.

He will have to ease widespread discontent over endemic corruption, chronic power cuts and crumbling infrastructure in the nuclear-armed country, a strategic U.S. ally. One of the first likely tasks will be to negotiate with the International Monetary Fund for a multi-billion-dollar bailout.

Cricketing hero Khan in the end did not have the momentum needed to trip up Sharif despite his popularity among urban youths, many of whom were voting for the first time in an election that saw a robust turnout of 60 percent.

They had rallied behind Khan’s calls for an end to graft and a halt to U.S. drone strikes against suspected militants on Pakistani soil.

Still, Khan’s Tehrik-i-Insaf (PTI) put up a strong fight against the PPP, with the count showing the two parties neck-and-neck with about 34 seats each. The PPP led the government for the past five years with 124 lawmakers in parliament.

“Nawaz’s victory says two things about Pakistan: one, the people of Pakistan prefer the comfort of status quo over the uncertainty of revolutions; and two, all roads to the centre go through Punjab, and in Punjab, people are right-leaning and conservative,” said senior journalist Nusrat Javeed.

“Still, for a party that only really arrived on the political scene in a serious way two years ago, PTI’s performance was remarkable, to say the least.”

BLOODY ELECTION DAY

A string of bomb blasts marred election day, with one attack on a party office in the southern city of Karachi killing 11 people and wounding about 40.

Pakistan’s Taliban, which is close to al Qaeda, has killed more than 125 people in election-related violence since April. The group, which is fighting to topple the U.S.-backed government, regards the poll as un-Islamic.

Despite Pakistan’s history of coups, the army stayed out of politics during the five years of the last government and threw its support behind Saturday’s election.

It still sets foreign and security policy and will steer the thorny relationship with Washington as NATO troops withdraw from neighbouring Afghanistan in 2014.

However, some fear the military could step back in if there were a repeat of the incompetence and corruption that frustrated many Pakistanis during the last government.

Sharif, who was toppled in a 1999 bloodless coup by former army chief Pervez Musharraf, has said generals have no place in politics.

He may also take steps to improve ties with Pakistan’s arch-enemy, India. Efforts to boost trade between the neighbours have stalled due to suspicion on both sides.

If Sharif is forced into a coalition he may look to Islamist parties to cobble together a majority in parliament.

On top of the 272 contested seats, a further 70 – most reserved for women and members of non-Muslim minorities – are allocated to parties on the basis of their performance in the constituencies. To have a majority of the total of 342, the government would need 172 seats.

(Additional reporting by Mehreen Zahra-Malik and Katharine Houreld in ISLAMABAD, Gul Yousafzai in QUETTA, Mubasher Bukhari in LAHORE and Jibran Ahmed in PESHAWAR; Editing by Jon Hemming)

The polls were a landmark, marking the first time one
elected government will replace another. But the vote failed to
realise the hopes of many that dynastic politics would end after
years of misrule and corruption.

The wealthy steel magnate from the pivotal Punjab province
held off a challenge from former cricket star Imran Khan who had
hoped to break decades of dominance by Sharif and the Pakistan
People’s Party led by the Bhutto family.

Sharif, 63, declared victory in a jubilant speech to
supporters as results from Saturday’s election showed a
overwhelming lead for his party.

“Results are still coming in, but this much is confirmed:
we’re the single largest party so far,” he declared to hoots of
joy from the crowd in Punjab’s capital, Lahore.

“Please pray that by morning we’re in a position that we
don’t need the crutch of coalition partners.”

Despite pre-election violence and attacks on Saturday that
killed at least 17 people, millions turned out to cast their
ballot in a milestone election for a country that has been ruled
by the military for more than half of its turbulent history.

With the count continuing into the night, Sharif’s Pakistan
Muslim League – Nawaz (PML-N) was leading in 119 of the 272
National Assembly seats that were contested.

His party may not have enough seats to rule on its own and
may be forced into a coalition, which could make it difficult to
push reforms desperately needed to revive a near-failed economy.

Sharif, who advocates free-market economics, is likely to
pursue privatisation and deregulation to revive flagging growth.

He will have to ease widespread discontent over endemic
corruption, chronic power cuts and crumbling infrastructure in
the nuclear-armed country, a strategic U.S. ally. One of the
first likely tasks will be to negotiate with the International
Monetary Fund for a multi-billion-dollar bailout.

Cricketing hero Khan in the end did not have the momentum
needed to trip up Sharif despite his popularity among urban
youths, many of whom were voting for the first time in an
election that saw a robust turnout of 60 percent.

They had rallied behind Khan’s calls for an end to graft and
a halt to U.S. drone strikes against suspected militants on
Pakistani soil.

Still, Khan’s Tehrik-i-Insaf (PTI) put up a strong fight
against the PPP, with the count showing the two parties
neck-and-neck with about 34 seats each. The PPP led the
government for the past five years with 124 lawmakers in
parliament.

“Nawaz’s victory says two things about Pakistan: one, the
people of Pakistan prefer the comfort of status quo over the
uncertainty of revolutions; and two, all roads to the centre go
through Punjab, and in Punjab, people are right-leaning and
conservative,” said senior journalist Nusrat Javeed.

“Still, for a party that only really arrived on the
political scene in a serious way two years ago, PTI’s
performance was remarkable, to say the least.”

BLOODY ELECTION DAY

A string of bomb blasts marred election day, with one attack
on a party office in the southern city of Karachi killing 11
people and wounding about 40.

Pakistan’s Taliban, which is close to al Qaeda, has killed
more than 125 people in election-related violence since April.
The group, which is fighting to topple the U.S.-backed
government, regards the poll as un-Islamic.

Despite Pakistan’s history of coups, the army stayed out of
politics during the five years of the last government and threw
its support behind Saturday’s election.

It still sets foreign and security policy and will steer the
thorny relationship with Washington as NATO troops withdraw from
neighbouring Afghanistan in 2014.

However, some fear the military could step back in if there
were a repeat of the incompetence and corruption that frustrated
many Pakistanis during the last government.

Sharif, who was toppled in a 1999 bloodless coup by former
army chief Pervez Musharraf, has said generals have no place in
politics.

He may also take steps to improve ties with Pakistan’s
arch-enemy, India. Efforts to boost trade between the neighbours
have stalled due to suspicion on both sides.

If Sharif is forced into a coalition he may look to Islamist
parties to cobble together a majority in parliament.

On top of the 272 contested seats, a further 70 – most
reserved for women and members of non-Muslim minorities – are
allocated to parties on the basis of their performance in the
constituencies. To have a majority of the total of 342, the
government would need 172 seats.

(Additional reporting by Mehreen Zahra-Malik and Katharine
Houreld in ISLAMABAD, Gul Yousafzai in QUETTA, Mubasher Bukhari
in LAHORE and Jibran Ahmed in PESHAWAR; Editing by Jon Hemming)

Widespread disenchantment with the two mainstream parties appeared this week to have brought a late surge of support for former cricket star Imran Khan, who could end up holding the balance of power if there is no clear-cut winner.

If that happens, weeks of haggling to form a coalition will follow and raise the risk of an unstable government in a country ruled by the military for more than half of its history.

That would only make it more difficult to reverse the disgust with politicians felt among the country’s 180 million people and drive through the reforms needed to revive its near-failed economy.

Power cuts can last more than 10 hours a day in some places, crippling key industries like textiles, and a new International Monetary Fund bailout may be needed soon.

Dozens of people have been killed in the run-up to the vote by the al-Qaeda-linked Pakistan Taliban, which regards the poll as un-Islamic and has vowed to disrupt the process with suicide bombings.

“The problems facing the new government will be immense, and this may be the last chance that the country’s existing elites have to solve them,” said Anatol Lieven, a professor at King’s College, London, and author of a book on Pakistan.

“If the lives of ordinary Pakistanis are not significantly improved over the next five years, a return to authoritarian solutions remains a possibility,” Lieven wrote in a column in the Financial Times on Friday.

The army stayed out of politics during the five years of the last government, but it still sets the nuclear-armed country’s foreign and security policy and will steer the thorny relationship with Washington as NATO troops withdraw from neighboring Afghanistan next year.

The party of former prime minister Nawaz Sharif looks set to win the most seats in the one-day vote, which gets under way across the country at 8 a.m. (0300 GMT).

However, Khan’s dark-horse challenge could deprive Sharif of a majority and dash his hopes for a return to power 14 years after he was ousted in a military coup, jailed and later exiled.

Pakistan’s best-known sportsman, who led a playboy lifestyle in his younger days, Khan is seen by many as a refreshing change from the dynastic politicians who long relied on a patronage system to win votes and are often accused of corruption.

THREAT OF ATTACKS

Voters will elect 272 members of the National Assembly and to win a simple majority, a party would have to take 137 seats.

However, the election is complicated by the fact that a further 70 seats, most reserved for women and members of non- Muslim minorities, are allocated to parties on the basis of their performance in the contested constituencies. To have a majority of the total of 342, a party would need 172.

Khan appeals mostly to young, urban voters because of his calls for an end to corruption, a new political landscape and a halt to U.S. drone strikes on Pakistani soil.

The 60-year-old is in hospital after injuring himself in a fall at a party rally, which may also win him sympathy votes.

Early opinion polls had put the share of votes for his Tehrik-i-Insaf (PTI) party as low as single figures. However, a survey released on Wednesday showed 24.98 percent of voters nationally planned to vote for his party, just a whisker behind Sharif’s Pakistan Muslim League (PML-N).

The Herald magazine poll showed Sharif’s party remained the front-runner in Punjab, which, with the largest share of parliamentary seats, usually dictates the outcome of elections.

It also pointed to an upset for the Pakistan People’s Party (PPP), which led the last government, placing it third. Pakistan’s politics have long been dominated by the PML-N and the PPP, whose most prominent figure is President Asif Ali Zardari, widower of assassinated former premier Benazir Bhutto.

“The PPP didn’t take care of the poor masses and always engages in corrupt practices whenever they come to power,” said Sher Nabi, a banker from Peshawar.

“So we’ve decided to vote for the PTI candidate this time and test Imran Khan to see if he proves as honest as he claims.”

In the violence ahead of the election, militants mostly targeted secular-leaning parties in the PPP’s outgoing coalition and largely spared more conservative parties that question Pakistan’s participation in the U.S.-led campaign against militancy, including those of both Khan and Sharif.

Many Pakistanis still plan to vote despite the bloodshed.

“I want to go out and vote but my parents are scared there will be a bomb or a shooting,” said 21-year-old Nargis Fatima, a student in Quetta, one of Pakistan’s most volatile cities.

“This is the first time I’m old enough to vote and I’ll try my best to go out there and feel that I am part of whatever new set-up comes into place.”

(Additional reporting by Mehreen Zahra-Malik in ISLAMABAD, Gul Yousafzai in QUETTA, Mubasher Bukhari in LAHORE and Jibran Ahmed in PESHAWAR; Editing by Sonya Hepinstall)

Khan has predicted a “tsunami” of support for his party in Saturday’s general election as voters, particularly urban youth, turn against the traditional grandees of Pakistani politics after years of misrule and corruption.

It could end up holding the balance of power if there is no clear-cut winner among the two main parties, as seems likely.

“Until recently people didn’t have a choice, it was a case of choosing the best worst option,” said Shafqat Mahmood, who is hoping to win a parliamentary seat for Khan’s Pakistan Tehreek-i-Insaf (Pakistan’s Movement for Justice) party in the city of Lahore.

“Now people have another choice, someone who is…a national hero in more ways than one.”

Pakistan’s most famous cricketer and perhaps its best-known playboy, Oxford graduate Khan captained his country to its only cricket World Cup victory in 1992. As a philanthropist, he built a cancer hospital and aided victims of a flood disaster in 2010.

Charismatic and – despite his 60 years – still athletic and craggily handsome, a jump in popularity has now brought Khan the political break he craved for so long.

Opinion polls have shown Khan’s PTI trailing Nawaz Sharif’s Pakistan Muslim League (PML-N) in Punjab province, which – with 183 of the national assembly’s 342 seats – is the key to power.

The PTI may also struggle to beat the Pakistan People’s Party (PPP), which presided for the past five years over a near-failed economy and was widely castigated for allowing the country’s Taliban insurgency to spiral out of control.

However, the media’s sympathetic coverage of Khan’s election-rally accident – including a TV interview from his hospital bed that was set to stirring music – could sway voters seduced by the prospect of a third force in a political landscape so long dominated by the PML-N and PPP.

Khan cracked a rib in the accident and his doctor said he would not be out of hospital on time to vote on Saturday.

A SAFETY VALVE FOR POPULAR ANGER

Junaid Ahmad, a law and policy academic at Lahore University of Management Sciences, said that for democracy to be sustained a “dramatic reconfiguration of mainstream politics” is needed, and the rise of Khan’s party is a step in that direction.

“Otherwise, the mainstream political parties’ corruption and absence of any vision for independence and self-respect for the country, and economic development, will provide a very easy opportunity for the military to come back to power – and ordinary people will be fairly indifferent,” he said.

Pakistan has been ruled by the military for more than half of its 66-year history, through coups or from behind the scenes.

The likely outcome of the election is a hung parliament, where no one party commands a majority, which means there will have to be a coalition government.

Mahmood said the PTI could win enough seats to be kingmaker. But he said it would not join hands with either of the main parties to form a government, and would be content to sit in opposition.

A weak coalition government, with Khan’s party – which remains untested and has only briefly held one seat in parliament, his own – as a forceful opposition could suit the military, still the real center of power in the country.

A senior diplomat said the military sees Khan, who has vowed to wipe out corruption, as a useful safety valve for popular anger over the graft and incompetence of the political class.

A survey by the Pew Research Center released this week found an “exceedingly grim” public mood in Pakistan, with roughly 90 percent saying their country is on the wrong track.

Six in 10 people surveyed by Pew said they had a positive view of Khan, who says he is one of the very few political leaders to declare his income and assets to the tax authorities.

In power, however, Khan could be a thorn in the side of the army, which is frustrated by the lack of support from politicians for its battle against Taliban insurgents in tribal areas that has killed and maimed thousands of soldiers.

Khan has vowed that, if he comes to power, he would end Pakistan’s cooperation with Washington in the war on Islamist militancy, stop the American drone strikes targeting militants and refuse further U.S. aid. He also wants to stop the fight against the Taliban and seek a negotiated settlement.

He has sometimes been ridiculed as “Taliban Khan” for his views on the insurgency and ties with the United States. Indeed, his party – unlike three others – has not been targeted by militant bomb attacks in the northwestern borderlands.

“With his immature statements on drones and ‘Americans must go’, an Imran in power would be a big problem for the military,” said a senior lawyer in Islamabad.

(Editing by Raju Gopalakrishnan)

Khan has predicted a “tsunami” of support for his party in Saturday’s general election as voters, particularly urban youth, turn against the traditional grandees of Pakistani politics after years of misrule and corruption.

It could end up holding the balance of power if there is no clear-cut winner among the two main parties, as seems likely.

“Until recently people didn’t have a choice, it was a case of choosing the best worst option,” said Shafqat Mahmood, who is hoping to win a parliamentary seat for Khan’s Pakistan Tehreek-i-Insaf (Pakistan’s Movement for Justice) party in the city of Lahore.

“Now people have another choice, someone who is…a national hero in more ways than one.”

Pakistan’s most famous cricketer and perhaps its best-known playboy, Oxford graduate Khan captained his country to its only cricket World Cup victory in 1992. As a philanthropist, he built a cancer hospital and aided victims of a flood disaster in 2010.

Charismatic and – despite his 60 years – still athletic and craggily handsome, a jump in popularity has now brought Khan the political break he craved for so long.

Opinion polls have shown Khan’s PTI trailing Nawaz Sharif’s

Pakistan Muslim League (PML-N) in Punjab province, which – with 183 of the national assembly’s 342 seats – is the key to power.

The PTI may also struggle to beat the Pakistan People’s Party (PPP), which presided for the past five years over a near-failed economy and was widely castigated for allowing the country’s Taliban insurgency to spiral out of control.

However, the media’s sympathetic coverage of Khan’s election-rally accident – including a TV interview from his hospital bed that was set to stirring music – could sway voters seduced by the prospect of a third force in a political landscape so long dominated by the PML-N and PPP.

Khan cracked a rib in the accident and his doctor said he would not be out of hospital on time to vote on Saturday.

A SAFETY VALVE FOR POPULAR ANGER

Junaid Ahmad, a law and policy academic at Lahore University of Management Sciences, said that for democracy to be sustained a “dramatic reconfiguration of mainstream politics” is needed, and the rise of Khan’s party is a step in that direction.

“Otherwise, the mainstream political parties’ corruption and absence of any vision for independence and self-respect for the country, and economic development, will provide a very easy opportunity for the military to come back to power – and ordinary people will be fairly indifferent,” he said.

Pakistan has been ruled by the military for more than half of its 66-year history, through coups or from behind the scenes.

The likely outcome of the election is a hung parliament, where no one party commands a majority, which means there will have to be a coalition government.

Mahmood said the PTI could win enough seats to be kingmaker. But he said it would not join hands with either of the main parties to form a government, and would be content to sit in opposition.

A weak coalition government, with Khan’s party – which remains untested and has only briefly held one seat in parliament, his own – as a forceful opposition could suit the military, still the real centre of power in the country.

A senior diplomat said the military sees Khan, who has vowed to wipe out corruption, as a useful safety valve for popular anger over the graft and incompetence of the political class.

A survey by the Pew Research Center released this week found an “exceedingly grim” public mood in Pakistan, with roughly 90 percent saying their country is on the wrong track.

Six in 10 people surveyed by Pew said they had a positive view of Khan, who says he is one of the very few political leaders to declare his income and assets to the tax authorities.

In power, however, Khan could be a thorn in the side of the army, which is frustrated by the lack of support from politicians for its battle against Taliban insurgents in tribal areas that has killed and maimed thousands of soldiers.

Khan has vowed that, if he comes to power, he would end Pakistan’s cooperation with Washington in the war on Islamist militancy, stop the American drone strikes targeting militants and refuse further U.S. aid. He also wants to stop the fight against the Taliban and seek a negotiated settlement.

He has sometimes been ridiculed as “Taliban Khan” for his views on the insurgency and ties with the United States. Indeed, his party – unlike three others – has not been targeted by militant bomb attacks in the northwestern borderlands.

“With his immature statements on drones and ‘Americans must go’, an Imran in power would be a big problem for the military,” said a senior lawyer in Islamabad.

(Editing by Raju Gopalakrishnan)

There is no doubt that attempts to bury a legacy of decades of military rule have made headway in Pakistan, where – for the first time – a civilian government completed its five-year term and stood aside to allow voters choose its successor.

But it would be a mistake to interpret the army’s decision to stay put in its barracks throughout those five years as a sign that it has loosened its grip on power, or that civilian primacy has at last arrived in the nuclear-armed nation.

Whatever the make-up of the government that emerges from the general election, its powers will be heavily circumscribed.

The military will decide on foreign policy and security, including the volatile ties with Washington as NATO troops withdraw from neighboring Afghanistan, and it will still run the thorny relationship with old enemy and nuclear rival India.

“There is no new chapter in the history of Pakistan as far as civilian-military relations are concerned,” said Ayesha Siddiqa, an expert on Pakistan’s secretive army. “The military remains relevant to politics, and it has partnerships that allow it to remain outside but control the inside.”

That the civilian government will still play second fiddle in Pakistan’s policy-making establishment raises questions about how far Pakistan’s young democracy has come and suggests that future coups cannot be ruled out.

Indeed, the prospect of election frontrunner Nawaz Sharif – who has crossed swords with the army in the past – returning as prime minister for a third time has raised concern that civilian-military distrust could erupt in open hostility.

“If Nawaz wins it will be a miracle if he completes five years,” said a senior journalist in Islamabad, who turned up the volume on his television during an interview with Reuters to muffle the conversation.

The military has ruled this South Asian nation for more than half of its history since independence in 1947, through coups or from behind the scenes.

The tentacles of the army reach into every corner of society, including the media and – thanks to a multi-billion-dollar business empire of its own – the economy. Its shadowy Inter-Services Intelligence arm has been dubbed a state within a state, and is believed to have vast influence over politicians.

POWER SHIFTS

Chief of Army Staff Ashfaq Kayani, whose reputation as a cool-headed, thinking general sets him apart from some of his impetuous predecessors, has said repeatedly that soldiers have no business running the government.

“No doubt there is a lot of pressure on him from generals below to do something,” said Muhammad Malick, a news anchor on the Dunya TV channel. “But personally he is not someone who would like to intervene.”

The army has good reason to want an amenable prime minister.

Kayani is due to retire this November, and the civilian government must at least nominally approve his successor. The new military chief will be in charge at a pivotal time as Western troops withdraw from Afghanistan, redrawing political and strategic alliances across a region that also includes Iran, India and central Asian states.

Some analysts say the preferred – and likely – election outcome for the army would be a parliament where no one party holds a majority, with the balance of power held by cricketer-turned-politician Imran Khan.

Analysts say the military sees Khan as a useful foil to the main parties, whose corruption and incompetence in power has fuelled a build-up of social tensions.

The military itself has lost much of its aura of invincibility within the country after a series of embarrassing setbacks since Kayani took over in 2007.

These have included brazen attacks by Islamist militants on key military bases and the surprise swoop in 2011 by U.S. special forces on al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden’s hideout in a garrison town just 50 km (30 miles) up the road from Islamabad.

Meanwhile, the judiciary – long under the thumb of the military – has been flexing its muscles.

In 2007, Supreme Court Judge Iftikhar Chaudhry was removed from office after he opposed plans to extend the term of then- military leader Pervez Musharraf. He was reinstated after a rash of street protests by lawyers, and then last year Chaudhry ruled that the military should stop interfering in politics.

Musharraf, who seized power in a coup in 1999, resigned in 2008 and went into self-imposed exile abroad, returned to Pakistan in March to run in the election for a parliament seat.

Instead, he was arrested for his crackdown on the judiciary during his rule, and the astonished people of Pakistan watched on TV the ignominious spectacle of a former army commander fleeing from court and then being jeered by hundreds of lawyers.

“The military used to get cover from the judiciary,” said a retired military officer, who asked not to be named. “The difference between that time and now is the strength and independence of the judiciary.”

Even the media, while still manipulated by the military, now finds the army “an easier morsel to chew”, says Dunya’s Malick.

DEMOCRACY OR DICTATORSHIP?

But if the military has given some ground to democratic institutions, it remains a widely respected centre of power that has the country’s politicians looking over their shoulders.

In a cryptic speech last month that has since been pored over by countless commentators, General Kayani took a swipe at the political class for its “self-aggrandizement” and “plundering (of) national wealth and resources”.

Many have taken his address as a warning to the incoming government that only by breaking with the corrupt and feckless ways of its predecessors can the country – as he put it – “end this game of hide-and-seek between democracy and dictatorship”.

Sharif, although a protégé of military dictator General Zia ul-Haq in the 1980s, was turfed from the prime minister’s office by Musharraf in 1999 and is still distrusted by the army.

He had his own warning for generals angling to succeed Kayani, pointing to Musharraf’s recent humiliating ordeal. “This accountability which is now taking place is itself a lesson to all those who have any such designs in the future,” he said.

(Editing by Raju Gopalakrishnan)

Azim, who is also a member of parliament, has benefited from government policies to grow the industry into a global powerhouse. His elegant home here in Dhaka is a haven of luxury with an outdoor swimming pool, walled off from the chaos of the capital’s streets.

But he has a complaint: His costs have almost doubled over the past several years. It’s now time for the big Western brands he supplies to pay more for their clothes, and stop squeezing his margins, he declares.

“The buyers have not given anything. They just say ‘increase your productivity’,” Azim said in an interview.

In workshops across this South Asian country of 160 million people, however, few are sympathizing with the textile tycoons and their bottom lines. Western retailers are powerful, but so too are the garment moguls.

Thanks to their political clout and now a new Industrial Police force that crushes dissension at their plants, labor activists say, it is the factory owners themselves who keep garment workers’ wages lower than anywhere else in the world – and all too often get away with lax safety standards.

The collapse on April 24 of an eight-story building near Dhaka that housed several garment factories was a harrowing reminder of the collective failure – by the authorities, owners and buyers – to ensure that cheap doesn’t mean dangerous. The Rana Plaza tower fell like a pack of cards. More than 430 workers were killed and scores remain missing. It was the third deadly incident in six months to raise questions about worker safety and labor conditions in the poor South Asian country, which relies on garments for 80 percent of its exports.

Until now, there has been little pressure here to improve safety conditions and wages for the 4.5 million Bangladeshis working in the industry. That inertia stems, in part, from how deeply the industry has woven itself into the power structure.

More than 30 garment industry bosses are members of parliament, accounting for about 10 percent of its lawmakers. Other owners, like Mohammed Sohel Rana, the owner of the building that collapsed, have strong political ties: He was a local leader of the youth wing of the ruling party, the Awami League.

Rana was arrested trying to escape across the border to India and faces charges of unlawful construction causing deaths. Bangladesh officials say his eight-storey complex was built on swampy ground without the correct permits.

“At least 50 percent of the members of parliament have business links of some sort,” says Babul Akhter, a leader of the Bangladesh Center for Workers Solidarity, an organization that works with labor unions. He alleges that many of these politically connected garment makers take advantage of their clout to disregard the minimum wage levels stipulated under the law.

Activists such as Akhter who campaign for safer factories and better wages are often treated as enemies of the state in a country whose economy would be devastated if Western brands pulled out.

One prominent campaigner, Aminul Islam, paid the price last year: Bearing signs of torture, his body was found one day many miles from where he was last seen. The government dismisses allegations it had a hand in the killing of Islam, but he had been detained and tortured by security forces in the past. His killing is still under investigation, and no arrests have been made in the case.

Akhter himself was arrested for inciting mob violence and beaten in jail three years ago after a bout of labor unrest; today, he says he still has charges pending against him from that time, and is followed by unknown men who, he suspects, are intelligence agents.

“There is no reason to follow him,” said Mainuddin Khandaker, the second-ranking bureaucrat in the home ministry. “We don’t have any such reports.”

LAST OUTPOST OF CHEAP

As pay levels rise in traditional factory-floor nations, Bangladesh stands as a last outpost of cheap labor, an advantage that has helped lift it to number two in the global ranking of garment exporters, behind China.

Bangladesh ranked last in minimum wages for factory workers in 2010, according to World Bank data, behind Cambodia, the last country added to the global supply chain in 2000.

“It’s the lowest of the low in terms of wages,” says Malte Luebker, the International labor Organization’s senior wage specialist for Asia-Pacific. “Wages are the key drawing point.”

How Bangladesh remains so competitive is, in part, the story of powerful First World retailers playing factory owners, such as Azim, off each other to secure the lowest price.

It is also the story of a government that stifles labor activism both to protect the country’s economic lifeline and to please business magnates who have become part of the political and social establishment.

It’s a set-up that suits everyone, including customers in the troubled economies of Europe and North America who want discounted T-shirts and trousers from big brands such as Wal-Mart, Target, H&M and Loblaw.

What makes it all possible is the Bangladeshis who make the clothes, many working in hazardous conditions and some earning less than $2 a day.

‘NEXT ELEVEN’ ECONOMY

The garment industry is emblematic of Bangladesh’s rise as an emerging economy in recent years. Once the eastern wing of Pakistan, Bangladesh won independence after a bloody war in 1971 that left its economy shattered. The disaster-prone country became a byword for desperate poverty in the years that followed, dependent on foreign aid as it struggled with political instability, corruption and over-population.

Today, thanks in large part to the explosive growth of its garment industry, Bangladesh is included in the so-called “Next Eleven” economies, a term Goldman Sachs coined to describe countries such as Indonesia and Iran, Mexico and South Korea that have the potential to become some of the world’s biggest emerging economies this century.

Until 2004, the Multi-Fibre Agreement (MFA) imposed quotas on developing nations’ textile and garment exports to rich nations. It gave Dhaka and its rivals fixed market shares; when it expired at the end of 2004, Bangladesh braced for ruinous competition, particularly from China.

Instead, its apparel exports leapt, tripling after the expiry of the MFA to $19 billion in financial year 2011-12. That has narrowed the export gap with China. Labor shortages, wage inflation and a shift to higher-value manufactured products have made China less attractive as a source for garments.

The dismantling of quotas led to a “fast-money culture” that spawned a new class of garment moguls who found their way into politics and the media, said the representative of a big American retailer in Dhaka.

Western chains can retail clothes from Bangladesh for up to 10 times factory-gate prices. They began piling into the country in their never-ending quest for rock-bottom costs. Directly or indirectly, they have been sometimes doing business with Sohel Rana and the garment moguls.

WAGES BEGIN TO RISE

The big retail chains, offering big-volume orders, are spoiled for choice. Bangladesh has more than 3,500 garment factories. Trade pacts offering favorable access to Bangladeshi goods also help: Europe takes 60 percent of the country’s apparel exports, the United States 23 percent.

Set against those advantages are the congested roads, the lack of a deep-sea harbor and crippling power shortages. Grinding political unrest regularly leads to general strikes that paralyze the economy and add pressure on factory owners. Weeks before the Rana Plaza collapse, the Bangladesh Garment Manufacturers and Exporters Association (BGMEA) said strikes and unrest may have cost the country $3 billion worth of potential new business.

Garment workers won a victory of sorts in 2010 after months of violent protests over pay and conditions. The government raised the monthly minimum wage by 80 percent to 3,000 takas ($38.50). Only a small fraction of workers are actually paid the minimum, however: Several factory owners said the average wage in their factories is around 5,000 takas ($64.10).

That’s still much lower than in China, where the minimum wage for garment workers ranges from $154 to $230 per month, and in Cambodia, where the monthly base is $80, according to the International labor Organization.

Drawn by the lower costs, even Chinese garment businesses are moving to Bangladesh.

Cherry Body Fashions, a lingerie and swimwear factory in an export-processing zone outside Dhaka, is a stark illustration of the shift. General Manager Wallace Chu says 10 years ago, the company’s owner, a Hong Kong firm, had 3,500 workers in China. Now it employs just 200 there – and 2,500 in Bangladesh.

“My boss will be moving more and more business here to survive,” Chu said.

RACE TO BOTTOM

The Western brands regularly press the Bangladeshi government and the garment manufacturers association to ensure factories are safe and workers are paid decent wages. But, says Mikail Shipar, the top bureaucrat in the Ministry of Labor and Employment: “They say we should raise the minimum wage, but they are not very eager to raise their purchase rates.”

Several plant owners, factory managers and representatives of retailers in Dhaka, none of whom would speak on record about the subject, said the brands are paying less and less. One said a buyer paid him $5.00 per piece for a particular make of shirt in 2011 and then offered $4.50 for the same thing a year later. Another estimated that overall prices have fallen by 40 percent over the past two years.

“They pay you like a beggar and take quality like a king,” said Abdul Mannan, who helped open up the industry when he was textiles minister in the early 1990s and now owns more than two dozen factories at home and abroad.

Sometimes buyers refuse to negotiate because they know competition among factory owners for high-volume orders is intense.

“It’s not so much the fault of the brands as the employers who are under-cutting each other,” said a representative of a large American brand in Bangladesh. “If people are under-cutting each other, of course we take advantage of that – so prices are going down and down and down.”

LABOR SUPPRESSION

Labor activists say that just as the brands squeeze their suppliers, factory owners scrimp on the wages they pay – and enjoy the political backing to get away with it.

A study by the Fair Wear Foundation, a non-profit lobby group, found that some workers were receiving less than the new minimum, nearly a quarter were reassigned to lower pay grades and bonuses were reduced.

Many factory workers live in the squalid back streets of the capital. Among them is Minara, who declined to give her full name. She is one of more than 3.5 million women who work in the apparel industry.

Home for her is a single windowless room she shares with her husband and a 15-year-old daughter. The girl, like her mother, is a helper in a factory measuring collar sizes and arranging bundles of cloth. Together, even with overtime, Minara and her daughter barely earn more than $90 a month, half of which pays for rent.

Standing in her doorway and looking out at a toilet and kitchen area that she shares with neighbors, Minara says that the price of a shirt in Europe or the United States is about what she earns in a month. “But if the government took the situation seriously, and gave orders to the owners, then it would all work better,” she said.

The government has helped keep a cork on labor activism. In 2010, in the midst of the labor violence that year, it set up a 2,990-strong Industrial Police force to collect intelligence and prevent unrest in factory zones.

“If any unions demonstrate or raise their voice, the industrial police will come and tell them to stop protesting,” said Akhter, the labor activist. “If they don’t stop, they are attacked and beaten with sticks.”

The government denies that unions are suppressed. It says many activists are politically motivated and, backed by non-governmental organizations in the West, deliberately stir up social unrest.

“We support the unions and want them to play a greater role,” said H.T. Imam, a cabinet member and adviser to the prime minister, told Reuters. “We are quite pro-labor.”

NO PROSECUTIONS

Azim, the factory owner and lone independent member of parliament, said garment business leaders are “socially connected,” but he denied reports they grease the wheels through donations to the main political parties.

Said one industry official in defense of the owners who are members of parliament: “It’s true that many of these people are really big and hold enough power to lobby the government, but I haven’t seen them put up one bill or discussion (about the industry) in parliament.”

The apparel industry body, the BGMEA, is routinely criticized in the media for protecting its members when accidents happen at factories. Human-rights groups say there has never been a case in which a factory owner was prosecuted over the deaths of workers.

The BGMEA said it discussed safety issues this week with representatives of more than 40 brands, including H&M, JC Penney, Gap Inc, Inditex, Levi’s, Marks & Spencer, Tesco, Target, Nike Inc, and Primark. The group said in a statement on Thursday the buyers set up a committee “to look at all safety-related issues of apparel units, including their building structure.”

In November, scores died in a garment-factory fire, many of them because supervisors ordered workers back to their stations even as an alarm rang and smoke rose through an internal staircase.

The owner of the plant was absolved of blame in the BGMEA’s report on the incident. The government said it suspected the fire was an act of sabotage – though that was never proved. Calls for the factory owner to go on trial went unheeded.

(Additional reporting by Serajul Quadir in DHAKA; Editing by Bill Tarrant and Michael Williams)

Azim, who is also a member of parliament, has benefited from government policies to grow the industry into a global powerhouse. His elegant home here in Dhaka is a haven of luxury with an outdoor swimming pool, walled off from the chaos of the capital’s streets.

But he has a complaint: His costs have almost doubled over the past several years. It’s now time for the big Western brands he supplies to pay more for their clothes, and stop squeezing his margins, he declares.

“The buyers have not given anything. They just say ‘increase your productivity’,” Azim said in an interview.

In workshops across this South Asian country of 160 million people, however, few are sympathizing with the textile tycoons and their bottom lines. Western retailers are powerful, but so too are the garment moguls.

Thanks to their political clout and now a new Industrial Police force that crushes dissension at their plants, labor activists say, it is the factory owners themselves who keep garment workers’ wages lower than anywhere else in the world – and all too often get away with lax safety standards.

The collapse on April 24 of an eight-story building near Dhaka that housed several garment factories was a harrowing reminder of the collective failure – by the authorities, owners and buyers – to ensure that cheap doesn’t mean dangerous. The Rana Plaza tower fell like a pack of cards. More than 430 workers were killed and scores remain missing. It was the third deadly incident in six months to raise questions about worker safety and labor conditions in the poor South Asian country, which relies on garments for 80 percent of its exports.

To read the story in a PDF: click link.reuters.com/juw77t

Graphic: Bangladesh clothes the world: click link.reuters.com/tuw77t

Until now, there has been little pressure here to improve safety conditions and wages for the 4.5 million Bangladeshis working in the industry. That inertia stems, in part, from how deeply the industry has woven itself into the power structure.

More than 30 garment industry bosses are members of parliament, accounting for about 10 percent of its lawmakers. Other owners, like Mohammed Sohel Rana, the owner of the building that collapsed, have strong political ties: He was a local leader of the youth wing of the ruling party, the Awami League.

Rana was arrested trying to escape across the border to India and faces charges of unlawful construction causing deaths. Bangladesh officials say his eight-storey complex was built on swampy ground without the correct permits.

“At least 50 percent of the members of parliament have business links of some sort,” says Babul Akhter, a leader of the Bangladesh Center for Workers Solidarity, an organization that works with labor unions. He alleges that many of these politically connected garment makers take advantage of their their clout to disregard the minimum wage levels stipulated under the law.

Activists such as Akhter who campaign for safer factories and better wages are often treated as enemies of the state in a country whose economy would be devastated if Western brands pulled out.

One prominent campaigner, Aminul Islam, paid the price last year: Bearing signs of torture, his body was found one day many miles from where he was last seen. The government dismisses allegations it had a hand in the killing of Islam, but he had been detained and tortured by security forces in the past. His killing is still under investigation, and no arrests have been made in the case.

Akhter himself was arrested for inciting mob violence and beaten in jail three years ago after a bout of labor unrest; today, he says he still has charges pending against him from that time, and is followed by unknown men who, he suspects, are intelligence agents.

“There is no reason to follow him,” said Mainuddin Khandaker, the second-ranking bureaucrat in the home ministry. “We don’t have any such reports.”

LAST OUTPOST OF CHEAP

As pay levels rise in traditional factory-floor nations, Bangladesh stands as a last outpost of cheap labor, an advantage that has helped lift it to number two in the global ranking of garment exporters, behind China.

Bangladesh ranked last in minimum wages for factory workers in 2010, according to World Bank data, behind Cambodia, the last country added to the global supply chain in 2000.

“It’s the lowest of the low in terms of wages,” says Malte Luebker, the International labor Organization’s senior wage specialist for Asia-Pacific. “Wages are the key drawing point.”

How Bangladesh remains so competitive is, in part, the story of powerful First World retailers playing factory owners, such as Azim, off each other to secure the lowest price.

It is also the story of a government that stifles labor activism both to protect the country’s economic lifeline and to please business magnates who have become part of the political and social establishment.

It’s a set-up that suits everyone, including customers in the troubled economies of Europe and North America who want discounted T-shirts and trousers from big brands such as Wal-Mart (WMT.N: Quote, Profile, Research), Target (TGT.N: Quote, Profile, Research), H&M (HMb.ST: Quote, Profile, Research) and Loblaw (L.TO: Quote, Profile, Research).

What makes it all possible is the Bangladeshis who make the clothes, many working in hazardous conditions and some earning less than $2 a day.

‘NEXT ELEVEN’ ECONOMY

The garment industry is emblematic of Bangladesh’s rise as an emerging economy in recent years. Once the eastern wing of Pakistan, Bangladesh won independence after a bloody war in 1971 that left its economy shattered. The disaster-prone country became a byword for desperate poverty in the years that followed, dependent on foreign aid as it struggled with political instability, corruption and over-population.

Today, thanks in large part to the explosive growth of its garment industry, Bangladesh is included in the so-called “Next Eleven” economies, a term Goldman Sachs coined to describe countries such as Indonesia and Iran, Mexico and South Korea that have the potential to become some of the world’s biggest emerging economies this century.

Until 2004, the Multi-Fibre Agreement (MFA) imposed quotas on developing nations’ textile and garment exports to rich nations. It gave Dhaka and its rivals fixed market shares; when it expired at the end of 2004, Bangladesh braced for ruinous competition, particularly from China.

Instead, its apparel exports leapt, tripling after the expiry of the MFA to $19 billion in financial year 2011-12. That has narrowed the export gap with China. Labor shortages, wage inflation and a shift to higher-value manufactured products have made China less attractive as a source for garments.

The dismantling of quotas led to a “fast-money culture” that spawned a new class of garment moguls who found their way into politics and the media, said the representative of a big American retailer in Dhaka.

Western chains can retail clothes from Bangladesh for up to 10 times factory-gate prices. They began piling into the country in their never-ending quest for rock-bottom costs. Directly or indirectly, they have been sometimes doing business with Sohel Rana and the garment moguls.

WAGES BEGIN TO RISE

The big retail chains, offering big-volume orders, are spoiled for choice. Bangladesh has more than 3,500 garment factories. Trade pacts offering favourable access to Bangladeshi goods also help: Europe takes 60 percent of the country’s apparel exports, the United States 23 percent.

Set against those advantages are the congested roads, the lack of a deep-sea harbour and crippling power shortages. Grinding political unrest regularly leads to general strikes that paralyze the economy and add pressure on factory owners. Weeks before the Rana Plaza collapse, the Bangladesh Garment Manufacturers and Exporters Association (BGMEA) said strikes and unrest may have cost the country $3 billion worth of potential new business.

Garment workers won a victory of sorts in 2010 after months of violent protests over pay and conditions. The government raised the monthly minimum wage by 80 percent to 3,000 takas. Only a small fraction of workers are actually paid the minimum, however: Several factory owners said the average wage in their factories is around 5,000 takas.

That’s still much lower than in China, where the minimum wage for garment workers ranges from $154 to $230 per month, and in Cambodia, where the monthly base is $80, according to the International labor Organization.

Drawn by the lower costs, even Chinese garment businesses are moving to Bangladesh.

Cherry Body Fashions, a lingerie and swimwear factory in an export-processing zone outside Dhaka, is a stark illustration of the shift. General Manager Wallace Chu says 10 years ago, the company’s owner, a Hong Kong firm, had 3,500 workers in China. Now it employs just 200 there – and 2,500 in Bangladesh.

“My boss will be moving more and more business here to survive,” Chu said.

RACE TO BOTTOM

The Western brands regularly press the Bangladeshi government and the garment manufacturers association to ensure factories are safe and workers are paid decent wages. But, says Mikail Shipar, the top bureaucrat in the Ministry of Labor and Employment: “They say we should raise the minimum wage, but they are not very eager to raise their purchase rates.”

Several plant owners, factory managers and representatives of retailers in Dhaka, none of whom would speak on record about the subject, said the brands are paying less and less. One said a buyer paid him $5.00 per piece for a particular make of shirt in 2011 and then offered $4.50 for the same thing a year later. Another estimated that overall prices have fallen by 40 percent over the past two years.

“They pay you like a beggar and take quality like a king,” said Abdul Mannan, who helped open up the industry when he was textiles minister in the early 1990s and now owns more than two dozen factories at home and abroad.

Sometimes buyers refuse to negotiate because they know competition among factory owners for high-volume orders is intense.

“It’s not so much the fault of the brands as the employers who are under-cutting each other,” said a representative of a large American brand in Bangladesh. “If people are under-cutting each other, of course we take advantage of that – so prices are going down and down and down.”

LABOR SUPPRESSION

Labor activists say that just as the brands squeeze their suppliers, factory owners scrimp on the wages they pay – and enjoy the political backing to get away with it.

A study by the Fair Wear Foundation, a non-profit lobby group, found that some workers were receiving less than the new minimum, nearly a quarter were reassigned to lower pay grades and bonuses were reduced.

Many factory workers live in the squalid back streets of the capital. Among them is Minara, who declined to give her full name. She is one of more than 3.5 million women who work in the apparel industry.

Home for her is a single windowless room she shares with her husband and a 15-year-old daughter. The girl, like her mother, is a helper in a factory measuring collar sizes and arranging bundles of cloth. Together, even with overtime, Minara and her daughter barely earn more than $90 a month, half of which pays for rent.

Standing in her doorway and looking out at a toilet and kitchen area that she shares with neighbours, Minara says that the price of a shirt in Europe or the United States is about what she earns in a month. “But if the government took the situation seriously, and gave orders to the owners, then it would all work better,” she said.

The government has helped keep a cork on labor activism. In 2010, in the midst of the labor violence that year, it set up a 2,990-strong Industrial Police force to collect intelligence and prevent unrest in factory zones.

“If any unions demonstrate or raise their voice, the industrial police will come and tell them to stop protesting,” said Akhter, the labor activist. “If they don’t stop, they are attacked and beaten with sticks.”

The government denies that unions are suppressed. It says many activists are politically motivated and, backed by non-governmental organizations in the West, deliberately stir up social unrest.

“We support the unions and want them to play a greater role,” said H.T. Imam, a cabinet member and adviser to the prime minister, told Reuters. “We are quite pro-labor.”

NO PROSECUTIONS

Azim, the factory owner and lone independent member of parliament, said garment business leaders are “socially connected,” but he denied reports they grease the wheels through donations to the main political parties.

Said one industry official in defence of the owners who are members of parliament: “It’s true that many of these people are really big and hold enough power to lobby the government, but I haven’t seen them put up one bill or discussion (about the industry) in parliament.”

The apparel industry body, the BGMEA, is routinely criticised in the media for protecting its members when accidents happen at factories. Human-rights groups say there has never been a case in which a factory owner was prosecuted over the deaths of workers.

The BGMEA said it discussed safety issues this week with representatives of more than 40 brands, including H&M (HMb.ST: Quote, Profile, Research), JC Penney (JCP.N: Quote, Profile, Research), Gap Inc (GPS.N: Quote, Profile, Research), Inditex (ITX.MC: Quote, Profile, Research), Levi’s, Marks & Spencer (MKS.L: Quote, Profile, Research), Tesco TES.O, Target (TGT.N: Quote, Profile, Research), Nike Inc Nike.N, and Primark. The group said in a statement on Thursday the buyers set up a committee “to look at all safety-related issues of apparel units, including their building structure.”

In November, scores died in a garment-factory fire, many of them because supervisors ordered workers back to their stations even as an alarm rang and smoke rose through an internal staircase.

The owner of the plant was absolved of blame in the BGMEA’s report on the incident. The government said it suspected the fire was an act of sabotage – though that was never proved. Calls for the factory owner to go on trial went unheeded. (Additional reporting by Serajul Quadir in DHAKA; Editing by Bill Tarrant and Michael Williams)