While I was going through last week’s Sunday newspapers I came
across an article which read “A Return to Jinnah’s Pakistan”. The
writer rightly pointed towards everything which should be a part and
parcel of a true state and a democracy for that matter and what Mr
Jinnah had hoped for Pakistan to have but sadly he sort of failed to
highlight the plausible reasons of why we are in such a state of
bother as a Nation currently. It may be a little putting it up but
frankly, the reason what I think is We Ourselves! All of us living
in Pakistan would abruptly demand for a free and fare election, a
commanding judiciary, executives doing what they’re supposed to do
but we would never apply that to ourselves. People would argue that
it’s the Taliban who pose the biggest threat to Pakistan, some would
say it’s the current government’s inability to run the affairs which
is causing majors problems or even people would say that it’s the
Americans and the Indians who are causing unrest in Pakistan but
nobody would ever peep into his own self and point a finger on his
own! Sadly the way we, including you and me, have become, we do not
deserve a good leader who would make Pakistan the country Mr Jinnah
had once imagined and hoped for. I hope we look within ourselves and
mend our ways for the greater good of Pakistan before we become
history! May Allah be with us all, ameen!—Gujranwala
Corruption galore
Syeda Ammara
Pakistan is on 42nd position in the list of corrupt countries. Being
a Third World and under-developing country, we need proper system.
As corruption increases, it effects the lives of ordinary people
too. The rulers are just busy in holding whatever they can, they
don’t have any concern with the poor citizens. Poverty is increasing
day by day and there is no one to stop inflation.
Our Education system is also suffering from corruption. There are so
many unauthorized schools in the country. The admissions on merit
basis are fake. The deserving students are left behind because they
don’t have money to buy a seat. The appointment of teachers is based
on PR basis. The universities are having budget problems,
administrations fill up their pockets, but still not interested in
providing facilities to the students. And can anyone tell that why
is there power shortage in the country? With the advent of winter
people have stopped using fans and ACs, yet KESC continues with
load-shedding.
Control on corruption is really needed for the sake of our country,
for this there should be accountability of our rulers. The check on
their assets must be proper. The defaulters should be punished,
whoever are they a common man or a Minister. Wages of people must be
increased and facilities must be provided to all. The deserving
people must get employment. The people must follow Islamic ethics
and morality to become good citizens.—Karachi
No intrusion thru airwaves
Mubasher Ahmad Majoka
These days PBC-VOA agreement is in the air for unknown reasons. An
article appeared in Pakistan Observer on 19.11.2009 by Mahmood
Hussain (former Controller of News, Radio Pakistan) in which VOA –
PBC agreement for bilateral cooperation was discussed in a totally
different perspective. He has termed this agreement as Intrusion
through air which it is absolutely not. All the apprehensions
expressed are far fetched and over stretched as pros and cons of
PBC-VOA agreement were minutely assessed at different tiers of the
govt before its finalization after a long process of consultations
spanning over a period of more than a year. The agreement was vetted
and approved by Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, Ministry
of Foreign Affairs and M/o Law and Justice prior to its ratification
by the Federal Cabinet.
PBC has not leased out its transmitters to VOA rather it has sold
airtime against a certain amount per year. Under the agreement PBC
will allow VOA to broadcast its programme of half an hour duration
in Urdu in the morning transmission and a similar programme in the
evening from FM-93 network besides a programme in Pashto of four
hours duration from PBC Peshawar only. The agreement has a very
limited scope as compared to vast network and airtime available with
PBC which is more than 750 broadcast hours daily. It is a
misperception that VOA broadcasts from FM network of PBC will be
used to “unleash US Propaganda”. All the issues relating to this
apprehension have been properly taken care of. The agreement clearly
defines the scope and contents of the programme. The fact is that
VOA programmes are under strict regime of checks and balances,
monitoring and editorial guidelines to safeguard the national
interests of Pakistan. PBC has entire recording of VOA programmes
and monitoring reports are prepared for critical analysis on daily
basis to ensure that nothing is against our national policy. Any
violation of the agreement would result in the unilateral
cancellation of the agreement by involving the breaking clause of
the agreement.
Attention of those who criticize the PBC-VOA agreement on flimsy
grounds is drawn to the fact that VOA programmes are already being
broadcast by private media in Pakistan for the last many years. “Geo
TV” a leading channel of the country is broadcasting a VOA programme
of half an hour duration since November, 2005. Previously VOA
programmes were also broadcast from “Aaj” TV. Are the VOA programmes
being broadcast by private media are against Pakistan’s national
interests? Has any one ever objected to VOA’s agreement with private
media? If not why to blame PBC for an agreement which is open,
transparent, fulfilling all the conditions to safeguard national
interests. PBC being a prime national institution is not oblivious
of its responsibilities. It stood the test of the time in the past
and at present its role is harmonious with national objectives and
it cannot afford the slightest deviation from the goal of projecting
and protecting national interests. —Islamabad
Pak foreign policy
Sana Arshad
From the very start Pakistan faced many problems. We lacked
socio-economic and political infrastructure.. To make the matters
worse our founder departed during the first year of our existence as
a nation State. Under those dire circumstances, we had to look at
the developed countries of the world for guidance and help. The
inclination of our political elite and higher bureaucracy was
towards democracy and liberalism(USA) so we joined SEATO and CENTO.
At the same time India became the torch bearer of Non Aligned
movement. It shifted them away from the power struggle and tug of
war of the super powers and they spend preponderance of their
energies in developing their country. On the contrary we were
dragged into International dilemmas one after the other which
greatly hampered our progress. A positive change in our foreign
policy came in 1970’s when Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto, then Prime Minister
of Pakistan introduced the policy of bilateralism. It was a positive
approach to build relations with other countries on the basis of
mutual interest. International Islamic Summit was organized thus
advocating Pakistan as the symbol of Islamic unity. The relations
with the Muslim countries were greatly improved which was a positive
development. Soon after Gen Zia deposed ZAB in a military coup in
1977 we were dragged into the Afghan quagmire. Nearly for a decade
we were a part of the great game being played in the barren lands of
Afghanistan. We went for short-term policy and are reaping the crop
of extremism today. We have shifted our foreign policy from a
sovereign to a mere satellite of the great powers. The seeds of
animosity between Pakistan and India were sown at the time of
partition on Kashmir dispute which have now flourished into a
fully-grown tree .The security dilemma made us into a security state
instead of welfare state and this thinking became predominant in our
foreign policy as well. We continued to have cold relations even
today with India. If Pakistan and India start to respect each
other’s sovereignty and work on the same principles as followed by
China and Russia then enormous opportunities exist for trade and
socio-political development of this area.
Our history with Afghanistan was also not a smooth sailing. Most of
the credit of the contentions lies on the shoulders of Afghan
leaders who put a claim on the North Western Frontier Province of
Pakistan. The total disregard of the Durand line on the part of the
Afghan leadership is a bone of contention between the two countries.
In short we should build our own indigenous foreign policy. We
should learn to coexist with our neighbours and focus on economic
cooperation rather than following blindly the political and
religious dogmas. Our approach should be pragmatic and problem
solving. We should focus more on the well being of our own people
than becoming a pawn in the hands of super powers. —Rawalpindi
Indo-Pak relation on Kashmir
Zarqa Sultana Khan
At the time of Partition in 1947 the state of Kashmir had a Hindu
ruler. Muslims constituted a majority of the state’s population. The
Hindu Dogra ruler had illegally acceded Kashmir to India in 1947.
India and Pakistan went to war over the control of the territory in
1947-48. The war concluded with a cease-fire brokered by the United
Nations (UN) in 1949. Kashmir was divided by a UN line of control
between the areas held by the two countries. The matter went to the
UN Security Council (UNSC) and in 1949 the UNSC passed a resolution
which provided for a plebiscite to be held under UN auspices to
decide the issue of accession. However, India has refused to hold
the plebiscite, and the dispute has continued.
Later, both countries agreed under the Shimla Agreement of 1972 to
solve the Kashmir question through bilateral negotiations, and not
through international forums such as the UN. India and Pakistan have
had different perceptions on what constitutes the main problem in
Kashmir. Now have moved away from long-hardened policy positions,
and this has surprised most people in the two countries, and abroad.
There is not much comprehension yet of the historic nature of these
shifts, or of the strategic reasons that have brought them about.
The biggest shift has been Pakistan’s decision to seek political and
security comfort through a new approach.
Reducing tensions, especially over Kashmir, will help to prevent
future military crises in South Asia like the 2001–2002 military
mobilization, which many feared could escalate into a nuclear war.
It also will help to prevent a nuclear arms race in the region,
especially at a time when Pakistanis are concerned that India’s new
access to civil nuclear technology could enhance its nuclear weapons
capabilities. Settling the Kashmir issue would also close a
battlefront for international Jehadists and demonstrate the
possibilities for resolving conflicts involving Muslim political
rights through negotiation and compromise rather than through
violence. —Rawalpindi
