Pakistan: Now or Never?

Pakistan’s Sharif seen isolated after ‘U-turn’

Former Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif is used to being Pakistan’s most popular politician, but lately he has become the country’s most criticised.

The government had planned to push through the parliament this month a reform package that would have stripped President Asif Ali Zardari of his sweeping powers,  but that seems unlikely now after Sharif abruptly raised new objections on Thursday. Sharif was the one who loudly and actively campaigned against his arch-rival Zardari.

It was a dramatic turnaround.  Just hours before a parliamentary committee comprised of all political parties, including Sharif’s, was due to sign the reforms package, Sharif threw a political bombshell by raising objections over the the appointment of judges and the renaming of the North West Frontier Province.

It is the first time in the history of Pakistan, which has been ruled by the military for half of its history, that a civilian government was pushing a comprehensive constitutional reform package through the parliament — with the consultation of the opposition — to undo provisions introduced by dictators to tighten their grip on power.

Now there is hardly a television talk show, a newspaper editorial or article where Sharif’s stance is not being slammed.

“Nawaz betrays democracy,” the Daily Times front-paged a banner headline on Friday along with picture of a grim-faced Sharif.

“Absolute disappointment”, “about-face” and “U-turn” were how the other newspapers described Sharif’s announcement.

Pakistan and Afghanistan: holiday satire

Since we are going into a holiday season and not everybody is working, here is some lighter reading to be going on with:

Nadeem Paracha at the Dawn blog has come up with a Pakistan New Media Dictionary.

Here is his definition of a conspiracy theory: “A theory that is not a theory at all but a hard fact on Pakistani TV channels. Anyone disagreeing with the hard and loud factoids (conspiratorially called conspiracy theorists), is a Mossad/CIA/RAW/NASA/KFC agent and a possible swine flu carrier who would be lined up against the walls of Delhi’s Red Fort and shot dead during the Ghazwa-ul-Hind in 2012 AD.”

Chapati Mystery’s end of year message has a screenshot of a Google search for Pakistan + is. See his results here.

Ghosts of Alexander provides 29 tips for bad writing on Afghanistan. Point number one:  “Offer simple explanations for everything, no matter how complex. Nobody wants to hear that there is no sound answer or that ‘it’s extremely complicated’.”

And from the comments on the post: ”As soon as I finish my PPT presentation on the Graveyard of Empires (TM), I’ll send it over to you. I think it will solve all the problems in Central Asia.”

Finally, talking of power-point presentations, there is this (pdf).  I’m not entirely clear whether or not this presentation, which has been doing the rounds for the past few weeks since it was first published, belongs in the spoof category.  I will leave you to make your own minds up but here is one view from LCol JJ Malevich, who asks if Dilbert is leading the campaign in Afghanistan.

from FaithWorld:

Could gagged Mumbai confession do more good than harm?

A crucial part of gunman Mohammad Ajmal Kasab's confession at the Mumbai attack trial has been censored by the judge on the grounds that it could inflame religious tensions between Hindus and Muslims in India. After stunning the court on Monday by admitting guilt in the the three-day rampage that killed 166 people, Kasab gave further testimony on Tuesday that included details about his training by Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT), a Pakistan-based militant group on U.S. and Indian terrorist lists.

The front-page report in today's The Hindu, which noted the judge's gag order in its sub-header, put it this way:

Ajmal made some crucial statements on Tuesday as part of his confession. They pertained to the purpose of the attack as indicated by the perpetrators and masterminds and the message they wanted to send to the government of India. Ajmal also wanted to convey a message to his handlers. However, this part of his confession faces a court ban on publication.

In view of the communally sensitive nature of Ajmal’s statements, judge M.L. Tahaliyani passed an order banning the publication and broadcast of Ajmal’s statement recorded on Tuesday by any media or person, except the part which pertains to the CST. Mr. Tahaliyani remarked that the trial was at “a delicate stage.”

Given the complex mix of religion and politics in India, it's not unusual to see the media playing down the communal aspect of tension and violence. In the recent general election, the party that usually plays up these differences, the Hindu-nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), hardly used the "religion card" in its losing campaign. But that doesn't mean things are getting better. According to the Centre for Study of Society and Secularism in Mumbai, the "unfortunate year of 2008 ... proved to be worse than 2007." See their two-part report on 2008 here and here.

But Kasab's testimony could shed important light on what role religion plays in Islamist militancy. How could a young man who wanted to become a dacoit (bandit) be convinced by Islamist militants to try to become a shahid (martyr) instead? Was he actually convinced, or did he do it for other reasons?

Kasab told the court on Monday that he originally approached the militants to get weapons and training and won (surprisingly easy) admission to their office by saying he wanted to wage jihad. He was taken in and given extensive training in preparation for the Mumbai attack last November. All of this is detailed in published accounts of his statement in court on Monday. In earlier statements, police say, he showed little understanding of Islam or jihad, saying the latter was "about killing and getting killed and becoming famous."

from Global News Journal:

Breaking the news in Mumbai – literally

The concept of a televised war was born in January 1991, when news networks reported live on the missiles slamming into Baghdad and millions watched from the comfort of their living rooms as tracer fire lit the sky above Iraq's capital. A decade later,  the world watched in minute-by-minute horror as the twin towers came crashing down in New York. 

Now, with the ferocious militant attacks in Mumbai, we have arrived in "the age of celebrity terrorism". Paul Cornish of Chatham House argues that apart from killing scores of people, what the Mumbai gunmen wanted was "an exaggerated and preferably extreme reaction on the part of governments, the media and public opinion". 

It's too early to tell if governments will respond with extreme reaction, but the saturation coverage of the drama in the world's media would suggest that, at least on this level, the killers were successful.  

"Almost within minutes, television screens showed harrowing scenes of pools of blood where people had died or been injured, hotels ablaze, Indian army snipers firing at distant targets, and CCTV images of the attackers," Cornish writes.