Home Blog

9/11: Reflections After 21 Years

0

9/11 terror attacks in New York remind us of the darkest day in US history when Al-Qaeda terrorists, apparently masterminded by Osama Bin Laden from Afghanistan, terrorized the powerful US nation and, in the process, changed the geo-political dynamics of the whole world. It was the first physical attack on the US mainland since the British naval raid that burnt the White House in 1812. The tragedy that shook the world started with the hijacking of four commercial aeroplanes from different airports along the US east coast, but the destination of all of them was the same: California. California was selected because the planes bound to it would be carrying a full load of fuel, thus providing hijackers with the freedom to strike their pre-decided targets. American Airlines Boeing 767 struck the north tower of the World Trade Center at 8.46 am and within an hour, the second plane, Boeing 767—United Airlines Flight 175, collided with the Southern tower of the World Trade Centre. The third plane was used to strike the US DOD Headquarters; the Pentagon and the fourth crashed in Pennsylvania – some believe it was shot down by US Airforce. A total of 2,996 people died in the horrific attacks, including the 19 hijackers. The attack gave birth to the phenomenon of the “war on terror” that changed world politics for the next two decades and is still continuing in many ways.

Though 15 of the 19 hijackers were of Saudi origin, 2 Yemenis and 2 Egyptians but the US agencies found the locus of this terrorism in Taliban-controlled Afghanistan. US President George W. Bush ordered an attack on Afghanistan in October 2001 that still raises many questions as to why there was no other option to eradicate a terror entity consisting of a few hundred people – to this day, the US has not been able to establish any credible evidence of the collusion of Afghan Taliban with the tragedies of 9/11. But the mystery deepened with the US decision of “regime change” in Iraq in 2003. US found itself in unwanted and unjustified wars, costing the US taxpayer around $8 trillion. These wars were a result of the Bush doctrine aimed at eradicating the menace of terrorism from all around the globe. Bush took it personally when he stated: Our war on terror begins with Al-Qaeda, but it does not end there. It will not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped, and defeated. However, this paradigm had unintended consequences; the whole Muslim world was thrown into chaos. More than a million died in wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and at least 100,000 people have lost lives across Pakistan as blowback to the Pakistani decision to send its forces into erstwhile FATA to help the US operations in Afghanistan. South Asia (India, Pakistan & Bangladesh) and the Middle East remained disturbed for more than a decade and political currents have still not recovered from the consequences of 9/11.

Looking back at the past 21 years, the war on terror, whose objective was to eliminate violence from the world, brought more violence. According to an Aljazeera report, almost 241,000 people died in the Afghanistan war. On the other hand, the first three years of the Iraq war caused 654,965 deaths. The war causalities did not remain confined to Iraq and Afghanistan but affected other states as well. Moreover, the new war paradigm set the precedent of killing suspects based on the flimsiest evidence. Many states – if not all – started to define their insurgents and freedom fighters as “terrorists.” In South Asia, India conveniently labeled Kashmiri resistance as “terrorism,” but the phenomenon was not restricted to India; Pakistan, Bangladesh and the whole Muslim world redefined all resistance to central authority as “terrorism.” In addition to that, suspects were deprived of their rudimentary human rights and, in extreme cases, treated inhumanely. The places like Guantánamo Bay, Bagram Base, and Abu Ghraib prison were famous for it and were run by the US administration. As the owner of the sites, the US is responsible for what happened there and will be remembered as the symbol of terror, violence, and abuse.

The war deviated from its original path because the main objective was supposed to eradicate Al-Qaeda and its affiliates hiding in Afghanistan, but the US got involved in unilateral military campaigns against states that had nothing to do with Al-Qaeda. The Iraq war was one of them that was launched on the false narrative of the presence of Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq. It brought misery and deaths to the poor people of Iraq and rendered Iraq into a civil war that shattered the foundations of Iraqi society and its state governance – from which it has still not recovered. Wars in Libya and Syria cannot be delinked from the consequences of US policies after 9/11. Afghanistan met the same fate despite a heavy US presence. US eff orts to install and perpetuate a puppet government failed, and it seems that everything that the US once aspired to achieve – like women’s education, human rights and western style plurality – died when US soldiers left Afghan soil in August last year.

9/11 is a big subject; voluminous books and doctoral theses are required to make sense of its consequences. But within the limitations of this space, if we can bring home the understanding that the human, material and political tragedy that the world suffered – especially the Muslim world – is much larger and humongous than what America suffered. But this point is often ignored. Al Qaeda and Osama Bin Laden, whatever nonsense they believed about the west, ended up further brutalizing and weakening the Muslim world. 9/11 was a Muslim tragedy!

Shahbaz Sharif: A Prime Minister with unparalleled challenges

Shahbaz Sharif, a veteran of Pakistani politics for the past three decades, is now PM of Pakistan. He has thrice before served as the Chief Minister of Punjab (1997-99, 2008-2013 & 2013 till 2018) and is considered an able and effective administrator.

Over his years as CM Punjab, Shahbaz Sharif earned the reputation of a chief executive who developed a good working relationship with bureaucracies, big business, Chinese investors, and Western donors. Though unlike Nawaz Sharif, his elder brother, he has never been perceived as a populist leader on the streets but he earned his reputation as a bridge-builder who can produce consensus and take diverse interests along. He is a workaholic who is known to have called cabinet or administrative meetings at 6 am.

Despite the shrill narratives of his brother, niece, and many in the party, he never uttered political rhetoric against the country’s powerful military establishment and has always acted as a troubleshooter – and has been seen as a responsible, no non-sense politician by the establishment and international community with whom he built a relationship of trust through the donor community lead by UK Aid (formerly called Dfid)

PM Shahbaz Sharif’s immense political challenges

But PM Shahbaz Sharif faces formidable challenges. At this moment, his almost 10 political party alliance in the national assembly crosses the minimum required threshold of 172 with only two votes. He had won with 174 votes in a house of 342 (since the acting Speaker of his party could not cast his vote), but since then, one MQM MNA has died and there are rumblings of dissatisfaction from various smaller parties.

Shahbaz’s party, PMLN, has 84 seats, the second party in the ruling alliance (PPP) has 56, and the rest of the seven political parties provide the remaining 34 votes. This is, at best, a fragile balance and, at worst: a political nightmare.

This arithmetic alone is hugely problematic given Pakistan’s fickle politics of changing loyalties – and Shahbaz will continue to need the goodwill of the country’s establishment that was under allegation by the PMLN/PPP alliance for repeatedly bailing out Imran Khan government at every crucial juncture.

But Khan’s party was the single largest entity in the national assembly with 155 members versus PMLN’s 84. He was still considered on crutches for the 17 members he needed to survive. And the way he was ousted has created severe fissures in Pakistani politics and the society – and Khan has since created a credible challenge on the streets with a significant rise in his popularity across KP, Punjab, and Karachi. His rising popularity reflects a reaction to the way political change took place.

First time in the parliamentary history of Pakistan, a sitting PM, Imran Khan, was ousted through a vote of confidence. Attempts were made a few times since the restoration of democracy in 1988, but none succeeded. Though Imran Khan, former PM, as per his declared pronouncements, fought till the end, creating high political drama and dissolved assemblies in the act of political and constitutional brinksmanship setting the stage for the general election – the Supreme Court of Pakistan, in an equally controversial decision, blocked his way restoring national assembly.

But in the process, the apex court – by ignoring the firewall of Art. 69 of the constitution – seriously undermined the concept of parliamentary sovereignty and trichotomy of powers – between parliament, judiciary, and the executive – around which the balance of power system is built.

Earlier apex court failed to pronounce a judgment on the Presidential Reference sent to it. Reference by President Dr. Alvi wanted Supreme Court to interpret Art. 63-A of the constitution that attempts to stop and punish floor-crossing in case of “Vote of Confidence and No Confidence .”This is still pending in the court; had the court decided the nature and period of disqualification, then the fall of the PTI govt in Punjab would have been impossible and even the fall of the Imran Khan government in the center would have been unlikely – since PTI allies were encouraged by the specter of PTI defectors.

When seen together, all these developments have created the public perception of an engineered change that is now driving the politics of former PM Imran Khan across Pakistan.

PMLN: Impressive Cabinet but difficult partners?

Shahbaz Sharif faced an uphill task and took 10 days to create a cabinet from this 10-party alliance -and some believed with the help and push of the country’s establishment. But despite the delay, he managed to collect an impressive team that reflects years of political and administrate experiences.

Shahid Khaqqan Abbasi, ex-Prime Minster (2017-18) and with experience of petroleum and aviation, declined to join the cabinet but heads an Economic Advisory Council that advises PM Shahbaz. Ahsan Iqbal, who first served as head of the Planning Commission in 1997-99 and again in the 2013-18 government before becoming Interior Minister brings a wealth of experience and is widely considered inside PMLN as an “ideas man .”

Khawaja Asif, with PMLN since the early 1990s, has become Defense Minister – he has also previously served as Defense Minister and foreign minister (2013-2018). Khurram Dastgir, who represents PMLN’s stronghold of Gujranwala, has assumed the mantle of Minister of Power. He has previously served as Minister of Commerce, Defense, and Foreign Affairs.

PMLN insiders have confided to this scribe that the party wanted to maintain the “Energy Ministry” – previously headed by Hammad Azhar in the PTI govt- and was considered a necessary forward-looking idea to combine power, electricity, and petroleum under one composite ministry. However, it could not happen due to the pressures of accommodating too many diverse political interests in the 37-member cabinet.

Mr. Dastgir now faces the challenge of power shortages and load shedding that adds to political challenges. Power shortages, a subset of the country’s troubled energy challenges is the main component of its economic predicament. Dr. Musadiq Malik, who has served abroad and with the previous PMLN govt in different capacities, is now the state minister for petroleum.

Ayyaz Sadiq, who had graced the 2013-18 National Assembly as its Speaker and earned much respect for his conduct, had initially declined a role in the cabinet but finally accepted Economic Affairs. Maryam Aurangzeb – who had briefly served as the country’s information minister in the 2017-18 period – is again Information Minister in Shahbaz Sharif’s government.

Since 2018 she has been PMLN’s principal spokesman on media and is known for her hard-hitting stance. Senator Azam Tarar, a respected legal expert who created a name in bar politics, is now the country’s law minister.

Shahbaz Sharif’s nightmare of running a 10-party government?

But this 10-party hybrid government led by Shahbaz Sharif faces many intractable political and economic challenges. In the first instance, PPP, its main partner with 56 seats in the house – and controlled by wily ex-President Asif Ali Zardari – has stayed away from key positions of responsibility.

Bilawal Zardari Bhutto, son of Asif Zardari, has become the country’s foreign minister, with Hina Rabbani Khar as his state minister. Hina had previously served as foreign minister in the PPP government of 2008 -13 and brings valuable experience. But apart from this, PPP had mainly shown its interest in constitutional positions.

It has elected Raja Pervaiz Ashraf, ex-PM (2012-13), as Speaker National Assembly and was interested in the positions of Governor Punjab, Speaker of Punjab Assembly, and the President of Pakistan – if and when these become available.

Simply put, while PPP is part of the power structure and wants to improve its standing in the South Punjab in its bid to re-enter mainstream politics, responsibility for running the show and taking the blame for confronting Imran Khan’s declared Long March on the capital had to lie with PMLN and its team.

However, in a twist to this plot, PMLN – which appears to be making its decisions in London – has successfully persuaded PPP to forgo the position of Governor Punjab, where PMLN has nominated its candidate, Baligh ur Rehman. Rehman has served twice as a minister in previous PMLN governments. PPP has now settled for three ministers and two Special Assistants in Punjab.

However, this will continue to remain an uneasy relationship. Both parties have been historic rivals since the emergence of PMLN in the 1988-90 period. And it is widely believed that PMLN was conceived and designed by the then military establishment to counter PPP in Punjab. PPP of ZA Bhutto was predominantly a Punjabi party, founded in Lahore in 1967 and retained its dwindling size and influence in Punjab until the elections of 2013.

Throughout the 1990’s it was increasingly marginalized by the rise of PMLN under Nawaz Sharif and after 2010, its remaining electoral support was gobbled by the rise of Imran Khan’s PTI.

Challenge of forming a government in Punjab?

Twist to the Punjab politics is that while PM has issued a notification that announces the end of tenure for the current Governor, Omar Sarfaraz Cheema, and has confirmed that Pervaiz Elahi, Speaker Punjab Assembly, will be the governor till the appointment of the next governor; it is still not clear if President will let Omar go. Till the present crisis, the office of the President was considered a ceremonial position, but this was assumed because President was always from the party of the Prime Minister.

For the first time since 1997, President and the PM are from two rival political camps and Dr. Alvi has used his constitutional position to make life difficult for the PMLN lead political setup. PM Shahbaz’s son, Hamza Shahbaz, has been a Chief Minister in waiting for the past several weeks and with the current confrontation continuing, he may have to wait for several more days.

This situation has an unpredictability built in it – for Punjab and the central government. Hamza had succeeded in a vote of confidence that was full of cartoon-style violence, with Punjab Police fighting his rivals (PTI & PMLQ) on the floor of the assembly. Images on TV screens presented a dark comedy with parliamentarians of the country’s largest province fighting each other like the sour end of a drunken bar party.

When this macabre contest ended, Hamza Sharif had won 197 votes against Speaker Pervaiz Elahi. He only needed 186 to succeed, so it looks like a convincing win. But the twist is that 25 votes in this tally of 197 belonged to PTI defectors who sided with him under allegations of horse-trading and vote-buying. Now the legal implications of all this drama are under final consideration in the Election Commission of Pakistan that is set to disqualify these PTI defectors (Punjab MPAs) since they had already voted and ECP has no options to offer them reprieve – unlike the PTI MNAs who had not voted on 9th April.

Supreme Court is also expected to decide the nature of disqualification, whether it will be for a term, for life, or merely for five years. Whatever may be the outcome, the political balance of power in Punjab can change at any moment. With a wily politician like Pervaiz Elahi now acting as Governor and an unfriendly President, in the form of Dr. Arif Alvi, this challenge becomes more serious.

If Hamza’s government fell even before the formation of his cabinet, then the power dynamics would change. This could start the process of unraveling Shahbaz’s government in the center. In Pakistani politics, whosoever controls Punjab rules Pakistan.

On the national political front, former PM Imran Khan has demonstrated his popularity on the streets across three provinces. He has convinced the country’s urban middle and professional classes, leading business houses, ex-veterans and large Pakistani diasporas across the world that he was removed from power – as a result of a conspiracy – at the behest of the United States.

Details of this political debate are beyond this article, but most Pakistanis have accepted this narrative converting the political debate from issues of performance into one of “Right and Wrong.”

Imran Khan’s govt fell when its allies – MQM and BAP – left it. Prime Minister Shahbaz Sharif might have a similar challenge not only to get along with the MQM-P, BNP and BAP but with the PPP and JUIF; both will continue to look at the changing political kaleidoscope being shaped by Imran Khan through his protest demonstrations, processions and marches.

Keeping them all on one platform needs continuous support and goodwill of the country’s establishment, which is under tremendous pressure that has never been seen since 1971. Fixing the country’s troubled foreign policy is another challenge. But given the former PM’s allegations regarding US support for the Sharif government and its context with India, any quick progress with Washington and Delhi will not be possible.

Challenges of IMF and creditors in the Middle East?

After some promise in 2021-22, the economy is back on a troubling track. Managing it will be a considerable challenge. Pakistan’s expanding import-export balance, crippling debt, rupee’s all-time low nosedive against the US dollar, sky-rocketing inflation, and shrinking reserves are key areas that necessitate immediate attention.

The people are grappling with double-digit inflation, as well as wage and job losses, as macroeconomic indicators decline. All these indicators led to stagnation of growth and fewer prospects of genuine improvement. Confronted with these challenges, PM Shahbaz and his team traveled across the world to seek financial leverage from the IMF, Saudi Arabia, and UAE. Unfortunately, no quick help was available.

Govt sources kept claiming that crown prince, Mohammad Bin Salman, has agreed to provide financial leverage of around US $ 7.4 billion – including rollover of previous support of $ 3 billion and deferred oil payments. Another $ 1-2 billion were expected from UAE. During Dr. Miftah’s trip to Washington, it was claimed that IMF had agreed to add another $2 billion to the current program where the previous PTI govt had only availed $ 3 billion since June 2019 and $ 3 billion were to be received till September 2022.

Dr. Miftah Ismail had initially demanded a new program from IMF, but sources privy to the developments claim that IMF was not ready for that and instead suggested providing an additional US $ 2 billion in funds. However, the IMF team that was supposed to arrive in Islamabad on or before 10th May to finalize details has not come and is not arriving at all.

IMF team now wants to meet a Pakistani team in Doha on 18th May – and that too only once Shahbaz Sharif government ends the subsidies on petrol and diesel. But that would add to the government’s political challenges – already not mean by any standard.

Shahbaz Govt: Waiting for a miracle!

The new government had initially indicated that it would like to dissolve assemblies within three months after the budge and some electoral reform. But looking at the rising popularity of Imran Khan, they now want to delay elections as long as they can. They want this time to weaken Khan’s wave of popularity.

However, even here, there is a PMLN/PPP fault line. Many in the PMLN don’t want to delay elections; they think Imran Khan should not get too much time to shape a toxic narrative across Punjab and a turbulent economy will only help him. But PPP’s leader, Asif Zardari, wants elections to take place in 2023, giving him time to consolidate his position in South Punjab. Shahbaz Sharif also sees this premiership as his first and the last opportunity to head Pakistan.

If the Shahbaz government takes realistic decisions, it will dent public expectations, which are already undergoing hard-hitting inflation. If it goes with populist decisions such as holding back petrol and electricity price hikes, just as the outgoing Khan did, that will put an unmanageable burden on the economy.

Confronting the simultaneous political upheaval in the shape of PTI rallies and its decision to resign from the National Assembly puts more onus on the new government. Given these multi-dimensional challenges, it looks that – despite an experienced cabinet – the Shahhaz govt will find it difficult to delay elections for very long. But miracles can always happen. Especially in Pakistan!

Washington should move from “Regime Change” to “Regime Engagement”

US-Pakistan relationships have always been difficult – but many wonder if they had ever before reached this low level? Democratic Biden and not Russia’s Putin sending the message that a popularly elected prime minister of Pakistan is unacceptable to Washington is both awkward and amusing. Both sides have arrived at this difficult juncture through a series of misunderstandings, bad judgments, and missteps. But there is still time to reflect – for long-term consequences will be terrible for all.

The United States is the moral leader of the Western world – and by that virtue of the blue planet. This leadership extends in all dimensions: economy, science, technology, military power, and the power to define right and wrong. Powerful states and empires have existed in the past and those with a superficial view of human history often end up comparing America with the powers of the 19th century like the British empire or the earlier Ottomans.

Even a serious thinker like Indian origin author Fareed Zakaria (Author: The Post American World) had made comparisons with the Roman Empire by arguing that “not since Rome the world has seen a power like the United States.” But, the British empire, the Ottomans and ancient Rome were puny of a power when it comes to the scope and reach Washington enjoys in shaping its own age – and in real-time. British empire, mostly a function of the colonialism of the 19th century, was mainly a patchwork of loosely arranged territories held together in the interests of the English crown through coercion, complex alliances, and careful image management. From the screen of James Bond, Britain is still a major player on the world stage, but in reality, it merely projects American power. London’s collapse did not happen with the Suez crisis or the loss of erstwhile colonies after WWII but was evident from the beginning of the 20th century when the United States intervened in a European war (WWI) to save Britain and France from a deadly stalemate with Germans. Ottomans, like Byzantines before them, were mainly a Mediterranean power. Rome appears perfect from the pages of history books and Hollywood screens. In reality, Roman legions had to march for months to fight endlessly in the forests of ancient Britain, Gaul and Germania– in battles that were often unpredictable. The power of Rome was always fragile and under challenge.

United States is history’s first Global Power

The United States, by contrast, is human history’s first power with a global reach. From the plains of Eurasia and Africa to the wastelands of Antarctica, American power and influence touches the lives of elite and ordinary people alike. Till the 19th century, Latin America was Washington’s playground – now, it is the whole world. Then it was busy experimenting with the making and unmaking of Republics across its Southern hemisphere and now the whole world is an American laboratory. And many experiments go wrong. This explains the relationship of love, hate, fear and envy America enjoys with the world. Pakistan is no exception.

America inspires Pakistanis of all ages, ethnicities, and social backgrounds. While most Americans may not be able to easily point out Pakistan on a map, in Pakistan – like in the world elsewhere – America is part of every living room, from the farmhouses of Chak Shehzad to the shanty towns of Machar Colony in Karachi. Most Pakistanis would like to study, work and live in the US and to become US residents and citizens. Pakistanis love eating Mcdonald’s, possessing iPhones and watching Netflix. And they like Pakistan Airforce to shoot down Indian Migs with American F-16s. Bill Gates, Elon Musk, Jeff Bezos, Mark Zuckerberg and Larry Page are also heroes to educated Pakistanis and so were President Obama and Hillary Clinton. To be more nuanced, the likes of Henry Kissinger, John Mearsheimer, Vincent Peale and Dale Carnegie are inspirations. But Pakistanis also use American inventions – YouTube, Facebook, Twitter and WhatsApp – to blast American foreign policy towards them and the Muslim world. Most literate Pakistanis – if not all of them – feel that their country’s fate has been intertwined with America’s changing strategic interests.

Most Pakistanis believe Washington is doing “Regime Change”

This paradox, of contradictory feelings, to a great extent, has been a creation of the United States changing priorities towards Pakistan. At times Washington was firmly aligned with military dictators (1958-1971) and at other times, it supported democracy movements, political antagonism, and civil society aspirations against the Pakistani military (2007-2018). In the process, it kept on changing its friends and foes – and many wonder what is the real nature of America, what it stands for? Most believe that the 1977 PNA movement, the military coup against Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto and his hanging under the military dictatorship was supported by Washington. But they also believe that Gen. Zia’s death in a plane crash that brought Benazir Bhutto (ZA Bhutto’s daughter and Bilawal’s mother) to power was Washington’s act under changed priorities. Similarly, many would blame Washington for Benazir’s assassination in 2007, the rise of Asif Ali Zardari in Pakistani politics, the lawyer’s movement and the sharp civil-military divide that followed from 2007 onwards.

It is in this context that 99 percent across Pakistan now believe that America is behind regime change in Pakistan and would not let PM Imran Khan come back to power in the next elections – however popular he may be. It is like Turkey in 2016, where everyone – for and against Erdogan – believed that the failed military coup was orchestrated by the United States. Pakistanis can be neatly divided into two groups: One, that hates America for removing a popularly elected government and second, that welcomes America for doing that.

It is now difficult to understand if Donald Lu, the US Assistant Secretary of State, on March 7, 2022, was conveying his personal assessment or a message from the Biden administration when he told Pakistan’s ambassador, Asad Majeed Khan, that “Imran Khan is personally held for the foreign policy decisions and if he survives the no-confidence move then bilateral relations will suffer and Pakistan will have consequences, and if the no-confidence move succeeds then Pakistan will be forgiven” (italics mine). This does not matter anymore since these unfortunate words have become part of history, like Shakespeare’s “Et Tu Brute?”. Whether Julius Caesar actually said those words – 1500 years before Shakespeare – is now of no consequence.

Pakistani politics and it appears foreign ministries of Russia, China, Turkey and Iran have absorbed that Washington has created the circumstances by courting opposition parties and old cronies – as Ambassador Bhadrakumar puts it – to remove Imran Khan from the political scene. Since his government has already fallen, that means that Washington will work behind closed doors to ensure that Khan and his party are not allowed to return back to power in a subsequent election. If that turns out to be true, then it will have huge implications for Pakistan, the region and the United States. This is clearly Pakistan’s “Mossadeg Moment” (Tehran, 1953) and will give rise to a fulminating anti-Western narrative, the kind of one that created Iran’s Islamic revolution 25 years later– not needed by either Pakistan or the United States. In the case of Pakistan, with the popular rise of anti-west entities like TLP, this is already around the corner.

Is Imran Khan Anti-American and Anti-West?

The irony is that Khan is neither anti-American nor anti-West. If anything – unlike his opponents rooted in feudal or tribal cultures – he is quintessentially a product of Western thought and values. His political consciousness, his ideas of self-respect and his abhorrence of corruption are derived from his experience of growing up in England. Immediately after high school, he landed in Oxford. After university, he spent more than twenty years in the UK playing county cricket. This was a role that ultimately saw him winning the world cup as Pakistan’s captain in 1992. For most of his early pre-politics life, he was a notorious playboy whose girlfriends were mostly from the English aristocracy. And so was his first wife, Jemima Goldsmith, daughter of billionaire James Goldsmith. His sons – Sulaiman and Kasim – live with Jemima in London. His image as anti-American “Taliban Khan” is a stupid misunderstanding. This is a carefully created media narrative that was coined by his political enemies and exported by the Pakistani press when after 9/11, he rose in defiance against Gen. Musharraf’s policy of allowing US drone strikes across Pakistan. Imran’s strong stand against drone strikes was part principle and part ethnicity. His mother was Pashtun with roots in South Waziristan. Khan, in his cricketing days, had spent huge time trekking across the tribal belt – at times with his English girlfriends.

Photographs of a young Imran Khan sleeping on rocks, or charpoys, sharing tea and breaking bread with the tribals abound on social media. He adored their hospitality and fell in love with their cultural nuances, self-respecting ways and code of honor. From 2006 onwards, these tribal areas became the principal target of US drone strikes leading to thousands of deaths, including those of children – and Imran Khan became a crusader against the drone strikes and for finding a peaceful solution to the conflict. Let’s move forward to the post-2018 election period. Politics, everywhere, demands catchy terms to reach the hearts and minds of common men and women. Imran Khan’s advocacy of “Riyasat-e-Medina” – that frightens many liberals – is not the resurrection of a religious Islamist order but is a concept borrowed from the post-war welfare state in Europe and so is his “Sehat Card” that emulates British NHS and adopts it to Pakistani circumstances where every family has been offered a health insurance of Rs. 1 million.

The apparent trigger for the Donald Lu communication lies in the strong reactions generated by the Ukraine war and Khan’s Moscow trip. Before the war with Russia, few in Pakistan would have known where Ukraine is. This was quintessentially a European security issue and the kind of emotional response it has generated across Europe was beyond comprehension in Pakistan – especially when they compare it with the wars in Iraq, Syria, Libya and Yemen. Why Donald Lu’s communication asserted that the Russia trip was Imran Khan’s individual decision and not of the Pakistani state is surprising and, at best, a miscommunication. Pakistan’s quest to improve relations with Russia has been going on for the past quarter-century ever since PM Nawaz Sharif visited Moscow in 1998 – and the February visit was widely discussed across all branches of the government, foreign office and the military and had the full support of all sides -including ex-diplomats who had served in Russia and the United States. All those familiar with the discussions that took place before the visit emphasize that Imran Khan’s visit was never against Ukraine or Europe’s interests or was to send a message of defiance to the United States. This visit focused on Pakistan’s’ energy requirements and access to Central Asian markets; it was conceived and discussed purely in the context of Moscow’s historic mistrust of Pakistan and implications of a last-minute cancellation.

Washington sees Imran Khan as an “Islamist Taliban Khan”?

But Khans’ troubles with US foreign policy did not start with the Ukraine war and Moscow visit, or the “Absolutely Not” in HBO interview in August 2021. These started much before his taking over as Pakistan’s Prime minister. Before the 2018 elections, Khan invited several ex-diplomats who had served in the US to understand how he was perceived in Washington. He was shocked when he learnt that most in Beltway politics see him with deep suspicion and he is viewed as an Islamist and a product of the Pakistani military – not a man of his own ideas. Diplomats explained to him that the English press in Pakistan and India had painted him as an “Islamist” and as a “product of the military” for too long. And these impressions have been picked up, multiplied by the Western media on both sides of the Atlantic and turned into a belief. It was part propaganda and part misunderstanding because of his strong position against US drone strikes and his political rhetoric to neutralize his opponents like Maulana Fazal ur Rehman and other ultraconservatives across the provinces of KP and Punjab – who accused him of representing a Jewish conspiracy against Islam – because of his earlier marriage with Jemima Goldsmith.

As prime minister Imran Khan inherited Pakistan’s ongoing difficult negotiations with the US on its withdrawal from Afghanistan. Despite the initial bumpy start, he was able to establish excellent channels of communication with Donald Trump, taking him to the White House in September 2019. He was warmly received by Trump and Melania, the first lady. Pakistan and the US cooperated very well on the intricate process leading up to the Doha talks and a stage was set for US withdrawal from Kabul. Real challenges started with Biden coming to power in January 2021. Most in Islamabad don’t fully understand why Joe Biden failed to engage a leader whom he knew and with whom he could have enjoyed the most meaningful relationship in the region. However, expert hands think that Biden – who, unlike Trump, was fundamentally an institutional man – inherited old biases of the second Obama administration dating from the period 2014-16. Pentagon and CIA then were hugely frustrated for what they described as a lack of cooperation from Pakistan on Afghanistan. Things were not helped when Pakistan Supreme Court exonerated Omar Sheikh – the accused, in the murder of WSJ reporter, Daniel Pearl in January 2021. This prompted an angry call from a visibly upset Secretary of State Antony Blinken to Pakistan’s foreign minister to lodge a strong protest – and matters never settled. Focus shifted to Afghanistan where developments were unfolding at a huge speed. Sudden fall of Kabul in August 2021 added toxicity to the already frosty relations. Though Obama had first presented his exit plan from Afghanistan in 2009, yet twelve years later US military still felt the exit as a defeat and held Pakistan responsible for that humiliation. The US had privately demanded operational bases, logistics and air corridors for monitoring Afghanistan as early as June 2021. Given the evolution of Pakistani politics on this contentious issue since 9/11, it was impossible for a political government with lofty rhetoric of sovereignty to accede to these demands. Washington felt embarrassed. Pakistan’s foreign minister and NSA were prompted – after the HBO interview of “Absolutely Not” – to explain that the US had never asked for any bases.

The bottom line is that challenges in US-Pakistan relations have been building up since 2011. It was a year of upheavals that set the stage for difficult future relations. Raymond Davis Affair, the killing of Osama Bin Laden and the Salala tragedy all in one year. Misunderstandings or conflict of interest never gave way to a satisfactory way forward and things had already reached a tipping point in the last few months of the Obama administration, of which Biden was an integral part. In the post-Afghanistan scenario, three areas define US difficulties with Pakistan: India, China and Indo-Pacific. Washington wants Pakistan to mend fences with India on Indian terms; it wants the country to pull back from its strategic ties with China and to help the US and India in the Indo-Pacific theatre. For Pakistan, all three areas are fraught with fears and difficulties. There is no dearth of politicians and non-politicians in Pakistan who seek power with Washington’s help and will promise progress on at least two issues: India and China. In reality, this will be hard for any government to deliver – especially one that takes over in the current political climate when everyone believes that Imran Khan has been forced out to meet Washington’s demands and is not being allowed to come back even through elections.

Imran Khan still represents the best deal for Washington and the West. Unlike his corruption-tainted political opponents, he offers a genuinely popular leader – even amongst educated Pakistani American diasporas – who can be engaged on a clear road map with Washington. Given his nationalistic stand – and the trust of Pakistani intelligentsia and the masses he commands across Punjab and KP – negotiated decisions he makes will earn wider acceptability. Imran Khan needs to tone down his rhetoric in public rallies and on tv and conduct foreign policy behind the scenes. He needs communication experts to help him change how he has been perceived across the US and the west. But it also depends upon a fundamental rethink in Washington; can America be persuaded to switch from the old strategy of “Regime Change” to the more meaningful “Regime Engagement.”

Encouraging Floor Crossings is to support Money Laundering, Why?

PPP and PMLN, Pakistan’s main opposition parties that intend to de-seat Prime Minister Imran Khan through a vote of no confidence are banking on PTI MNA’s elected on PTI tickets to defect PTI and vote against PM Imran Khan.

However even a cursory legal review of the constitution makes it obvious that it will not be easy, will lead to a messy legal and constitutional battle that will scar political institutions and courts and even in the end will not satisfy media and the public.

Just like Nawaz Sharif’s disqualification in July 2017 by Supreme Court for UAE work permit polarized Pakistani politics, floor-crossing if permitted by courts will lead to another wound that will make the country ungovernable.

The way things are; courts will inevitably get involved and one wonders if a Pakistani High court in 2022 will make a decision, sanctifying “floor crossing” when floor crossings in popular imagination merely represent buying and selling of votes through dirty corrupt money. Why “dirty money”? because the large amounts of cash that are used for such buying and selling represents untaxed, undocumented part of the economy.

Political grapevine and even tv discussions suggest that amounts as high as Rs. 180 to Rs. 200 million may be offered – much of that has been openly discussed in tv programs and on social media over the past few years; in certain instances, videos of such meetings also surfaced.

In the age of FATF (Financial Action Task Force) where Pakistan is stuck since March/June 2018, it is difficult to see if any serious legal expert, forum, association, or court will offer arguments to support “floor crossings”

Floor Crossing law represents evils of Pakistani Politics

The history of law-making on floor-crossing is interesting, reveals the dynamics and challenges of Pakistani politics and has been discussed extensively in Pakistani media – especially English papers like The Dawn, The News and The Nation and in recent years on Pakistani TV channels. The 1973 constitution, framed by Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto and his legal wizard Abdul Hafeez Pirzada, in its original form did not have an anti-defection clause.

It was the 14th amendment, introduced by Nawaz Sharif government (1997-1999) that incorporated provisions against defection into the constitution vide insertion of Article 63-A. The purpose was to “prevent instability” in relation to the “formation and functioning of the Government”

Changha Manga: When Police Officers took parliamentarians to latrines

There were good reasons to use words,” prevent instability” and “formation and functioning of Government” in the language of 63-A. In the early 1990s Pakistani politics earned lasting shame when PPP and PMLN power tussles used “Murree” and “Changha Manga” as detention centers for literally imprisoning their MPAs and MNAs where police was used to keep members of parliament under lock and key before a vote.

Any member of parliament going to the toilette in the famous Changha Manga episode was accompanied by a police officer that ensured that member parliament actually went to the toilette or latrine to pee and did not meet anyone with an offer. This was an age before mobile phones and later WhatsApp changed political culture offering new avenues of political dialogue and intrigue.

However, the 14th amendment had defined ‘defection’ in a very broad sense. PMLN under Nawaz Sharif then had two third majority because of the Feb 1997 elections often referred to as the “Biggest Mandate” A parliamentarian or member of a provincial assembly elected on the ticket of a political party, under 63-A, was deemed to defect if (a) he violated party discipline, (b) voted contrary to directions of his parliamentary party, or (c) abstained from voting against party directives on any bill.

It was for the head of the political party to determine whether any of his legislators had committed defection on any of the above grounds. After his decision, the role of the Chairman, Senate or Speaker of the National or Provincial Assembly (the presiding officer) and the Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) was mainly in the nature of a post office – or ceremonial. The grounds of defection were such that a member could be shown the door most conveniently.

Musharraf encouraged floor crossings to suit his ends

General Pervez Musharraf, after his coup in October 1999, needed political engineering inside parliament and purely for his own interests brought several changes to the constitution including amendment of Article 63A, through 17th Amendment. Gen. Musharraf’s new version of Article 63A diluted the grounds of defection.

However, despite this dilution, defection was deemed to have taken place on two grounds: One, when a member resigned from his political party or joined another parliamentary party; Second: member voted or abstained from voting contrary to the directions of his parliamentary party in case of election of the leader of the house, vote of confidence or no-confidence, or a money bill.

Under Gen. Musharraf’s new Art. 63-A, a member could vote contrary to the orders of the parliamentary party he belonged to on a non-money bill or a constitutional amendment bill without invoking the defection clause. This was what Musharraf then needed for his political engineering – and running the show.

In order to weaken the hold of political party heads, under the 17th amendment, the reference sent by the head of a parliamentary party regarding the defection of his member to the Election Commission through the presiding officer concerned was not binding on the Election Commission which could reject it or confirm it within thirty days.

The decision of the EC could be challenged in the Supreme Court, which would decide the matter within three months. However, it is important to note that emphasis in 63-A on “Vote of Confidence” and Money Bill remain unchanged. Later 18th Amendment in 2009/10 again brought changes and strengthened the hold of political party heads.

Will any court afford justifying floor crossings in a FATF troubled Pakistan?

Despite Musharraf era’s use of PMLQ against PPP and later political bloc formation like Unification Bloc around 2011 in Punjab used by PMLN against PPP a convention ended up developing where defecting member parliaments have not been used in an open public

“Vote of No Confidence” against a party head. No Prime Minister has ever been de-seated through a vote of confidence.

Now PPP and PMLN are trying to interpret 63-A to mean that PTI defectors can vote against the PM and can only be declared defectors and thus disqualified through a long-drawn process after they have voted. This clearly defeats the intent and purpose of 63-1A, because if in the presence of 63-1A such votes of defecting members are allowed, and a government falls then their subsequent defection is meaningless.

Any legal process afterwards will be a cosmetic exercise in futility to fool the public, will reward the defectors and those who buy their loyalties, offers no protection against future floor crossings and will bring Pakistani politics back to the age of “Changa Manga” when governments needed to use police officers to detain and control their parliamentary members. 63-A was introduced in 1997, by Nawaz Sharif, precisely to prevent the political instability he now wants to create. This is the irony, and this defines the crisis of Pakistani politics.

The only functional interpretation of 63-A, that can serve the long-term interests of Pakistani politics and democracy, is that any member who clearly demonstrates his intention to vote against clear instructions of his party headstands disqualified with immediate effect and any vote he casts is “invalid” and “void ab initio” – in simple words such a vote has no legal value and cannot be counted.

Process of disqualification can then follow. Any attempted digression from this interpretation means to reward and encourage floor crossings -and political instability. And when one keeps in mind that irrespective of legal discussions of proof and evidence inside courts, almost 99.99% of the public believes that floor crossings represent huge exchanges of dirty money.

Dirty money that remains undocumented, untaxed and represents money laundering. Given Pakistan’s ongoing troubles with FATF, this is not a trend that needs encouraging from any serious quarter. Test of any law or legal document lies in its implementation; any law is meaningless if it fails to create a deterrence against the crime it is supposed to prevent or stop. One hopes sanity will prevail in Pakistan’s best interests.

China and Pakistan: Partners in a shared future!

PM Imran Khan’s visit to China on invitation by the Chinese leadership to visit Beijing from February 3 to Feb 6, 2022, to attend the opening ceremony of the Winter Olympic Games 2022 has been described as a huge success by both sides. It is obvious that the visit further cemented the historic and time-tested relations between the two countries – that describe themselves as “Iron brothers.”

During the visit, the Prime Minister held face-to-face talks with H.E. President Xi Jinping, and H.E. Premier Li Keqiang. And Pakistan’s foreign minister, Shah Mehmood Qureshi and his team had a separate meeting with premier Li Keqiang.

Visit’s conclusion on 6th Feb – After three days of continuous meetings that saw PM Khan interacting not only with the Chinese leadership but also with the top corporate decision-makers saw the emergence of an unusual 33-point joint statement that addressed and resolved most issues that had concerned many on both sides over the past several months. A new term, “Shared Future,” is being used by both sides to describe the deepening relationship of interdependence.

While two sides signed or concluded several agreements / MoUs, covering bilateral cooperation in areas of economics, technical cooperation, industrial investment, infrastructure, space, vaccine, digitalization, standardization, disaster management, culture, sports, and vocational education; the real importance of the consensus generated in Beijing in the first week of February is far-reaching.

Russian President Vladimir Putin’s presence added more meaning to the significance of the gathering in Beijing, as hinted by Pakistani geo-strategist, Dr. Atia Ali Kazmi in her piece, “Winter Olympics and the New Great Game” in the current issue of this magazine. Pakistani PM will now be visiting Russia in the last week of February – first visit by a Pakistani PM after almost 23 years.

CPEC: Broadening into ever new areas of cooperation

While relations between Pakistan and China are institutional and historic since the early 1950s, yet key personalities in different phases have played crucial roles. Asif Ali Zardari made the most trips to China, and CPEC was started in Nawaz Sharif’s period. Yet, Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto takes the prize whenever we think of Pak-China relations because he genuinely believed in the rise of China.

Pakistan’s current prime minister – like ZA Bhutto in the 1960’s – is genuinely fond of China; he is a great admirer of China’s progress under the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and is never tired of mentioning, in his speeches, that China has brought more than 700 million of its people from the clutches of poverty, developed massive state of the art infrastructure and communications, and has managed the challenges of human development, water and waste disposal in its large urban centres.

Khan is thus enthusiastic that Pakistanis and the country’s institutions should learn from China’s success and achievements in different walks of life. His ambition has led to a broadening of the concept of CPEC – for instance, his insistence in 2019 to add “Agriculture” to CPEC.

Read the thirty three-point joint statement, and one feels that this relationship is no more about security or roads only but has progressed through dialogues on infrastructure and industrial development into ever-expanding interests of agricultural modernization, scientific and technological cooperation in new areas like health, information technology, e-commerce, online payment systems, logistics, warehousing and customs facilitation.

Add to it the agenda items like water and waste management, urban planning, well-being of common people, and so on. All of this has started to reflect in the ever-widening agenda of CPEC Joint Cooperation Committee (JCC).

Consensus: From One China Policy to Kashmir to Afghanistan

It was also a time of reaffirmations. Pakistan underscored that Pakistan-China relationship is the cornerstone of its foreign policy and that closest friendship with China enjoys the abiding support of the people of Pakistan. Both sides reiterated their support on issues concerning each other’s core interests. The Pakistan side expressed its commitment to One-China Policy and support for China on Taiwan, the South China Sea, Hong Kong, Xinjiang, and Tibet.

The Chinese side reaffirmed its support for Pakistan in safeguarding its sovereignty, independence and security and reaffirmed its principled position on Kashmir. Emphasis on a peaceful and prosperous South Asia, importance of pursuit of dialogue and resolution of all outstanding disputes to promote regional cooperation was a veiled reference to India’s Kashmir policy that has affronted China after Narendra Modis’ unilateral decisions of August 2019 in ending internationally disputed Kashmir’s special status.

The Chinese side -without mincing any words – reiterated that the Kashmir issue was a dispute left from history and should be properly and peacefully resolved based on the UN Charter, relevant Security Council resolutions, and bilateral agreements. China opposes any unilateral actions that complicate the situation. Given the 2020 confrontation and standoff with India in Ladakh these words assume new significance.

Visible consensus on Afghanistan was a breakthrough and a message for the wider world. The Chinese side appreciated Pakistan for hosting the 17th Extraordinary Session of the OIC Council of Foreign Ministers on Afghanistan on 19 December 2021.

Emphasizing that peaceful, stable, united, safe, and secure Afghanistan is fundamental for prosperity and progress in the region, both sides called upon the international community to unfreeze Afghanistan’s financial assets. China and Pakistan affirmed that they are ready to discuss with Afghanistan the extension of CPEC to its territory.

Expressing satisfaction with the outcome of two Foreign Ministers’ meetings of the six neighbouring countries on Afghanistan, both sides declared next meeting to be held in China in March in which Pakistani FM Shah Mehmood Qureshi will be participating. They also declared that they would discuss with Afghanistan the holding of the China-Pakistan-Afghanistan Trilateral Foreign Ministers’ Dialogue.

Resolve to defend CPEC from terrorism & negative propaganda

While affirming the win-win nature of CPEC and its significance to regional development and connectivity, China and Pakistan expressed their strong determination to safeguard CPEC from all threats and negative propaganda.

Indian and western media continue to demonize CPEC, and Pakistani security institutions have openly blamed Indian agencies for sponsoring terror attacks against CPEC. Coming after several high-profile attacks against Chinese workers – like in Dassu – this assertion now assumed a new meaning.

Pakistan, that had made a public announcement of US $11 million compensation for the victims of Dassu before the commencement of the visit, reaffirmed its commitment to making all-out efforts for the security of all Chinese personnel, projects and institutions in Pakistan and the Chinese side expressed its appreciation for the measures taken by Pakistan in this regard.

Emphasizing that CPEC was a win-win enterprise and pivotal for regional prosperity and enhanced connectivity, it was asserted that as an open and inclusive initiative, third parties were welcome to benefit from investment opportunities in CPEC SEZs. This might fulfill Pakistani needs for investments from Saudi Arabia, UAE, Qatar, and other friendly countries.

China’s management of the Covid pandemic was exceptional as the figures of infection, and human losses demonstrate. After China, it was perhaps Pakistan that won international appreciation for its handling of the health crisis. Both countries had developed excellent cooperation during the Covid-19 pandemic, and Pakistanis benefited from Chinese vaccines like Sinopharm and Sinovac, which were later produced in Pakistan.

Now China and Pakistan have resolved to enhance their existing cooperation for developing emergency response systems, public health infrastructure, and joint ventures for development of the pharmaceutical industry in Pakistan to tackle similar challenges in the future.

Pharmaceutical industry has emerged on the agenda for the first time, and Pakistan’s pharma industry wants China’s help in producing basic materials – Active Pharmaceutical Ingredients (API). China is the world’s largest manufacturer of API and pharma products.

An important breakthrough took place when Pakistan highlighted that China has become a popular education destination for Pakistanis, and China agreed that while ensuring safety against COVID-19, China will arrange for Pakistani students to return to China and resume classes in a prudent manner. Several thousand Pakistani students have not been able to return back to their universities since the outbreak of pandemic – given China’s strict regulations.

Joint Statement also came up with a new theme when it asserted that China and Pakistan have agreed to make all possible efforts to support greater civilizational exchanges. While both sides welcomed the organizing of the Gandhara Art Exhibition at Palace Museum in Beijing in 2022, they agreed to further expand cooperation for the conservation and presentation of heritage and artifacts of the two countries.

This syncs with a rather provocative article written by Dr. Ejaz Akram, Chairman of National Rahmatul Lil Alamin Authority, in the current issue of this magazine, that asserts that Pakistan and China also share a past of civilizational exchange. The fact that Dr. Ejaz’s article was written days before the Joint Statement makes it all the more significant.

Prime Minister, Imran Khan, reiterated his invitation to H.E. President Xi Jinping to pay a state visit to Pakistan. President Xi had last visited in 2015; if his trip materializes this year, then even the worst cynics will have to believe in the mantra of “Shared Future”

Where Men and Mountains Meet

Pakistani media has not been able to create a name in documentary making, but this meticulously researched work – inspired and supported by FWO – was clearly an exception. Before the end of first week, more than a million had watched it, world-wide, on ISPR’s YouTube alone.

“Where Men and Mountains Meet” was clearly a passionate teamwork spread over several months between FWO, ISPR and a little known “Delirium Productions”. Producers had carefully selected several retired Army Engineers as narrators who were part of the original team as young officers – mostly as Captains – that had kick started the work on KKH in 1960’s and took it to completion in 1966 when Frontier Works Organization (FWO) was formally born on 31st Oct, 1966.

Michael Moore, world renowned documentarian and author, famous for blue planet’s highest grossing documentary Farenheit 9/11, had once written that first rule for making a great documentary is that “don’t make a documentary, make a film”. Makers of “Where Men and Mountains Meet” have imbibed the concept well.

So, their documentary sparks sudden elements of shock, surprise and intrigue amongst the viewers when it starts abruptly by brief comments from the narrators, one after the other, without identifying them without letting the viewers know who they are listening to.

Into the third minute of the documentary one hears voice of current DG FWO, Gen. Kamal Azfar, who speaks for little over a minute, in simple but crisp Urdu, setting the agenda when he explains that this “documentary film” has been made to remind the current generation of Pakistanis the challenges and sacrifices given by those who had worked on this ambitious project more than fifty years ago. Note that even DG FWO uses the term, “film” in his brief one minute introduction.

Documentary then faithfully follows its stated ambition. Several narrators emerge and introduce themselves during the 46-minute-long work of digital imagery. Producers had done their homework well; they kept on showing us not only the old footage, but they also brought up the old pictures of the narrators when they were young officers in their twenties.

Where Men and Mountains Meet

One of the most interesting – and perhaps disturbing for his account – is Gen. (retd) Javaid Nasir who remembers how he was suddenly parachuted along with 150 men of 101 Engineering Battalion on Pak-China border in June of 1966 on a mission impossible around Khunjerab Pass that straddles above 16,00 feet. Little was known about the area, its geography, its people and men had no time to acclimatize.

Before they could build anything, their mission was to survive two dangerous enemies: cold and height. He and other narrators remember the cold bitten hands, amputations, and deaths by landslides – and how it was difficult to walk and breathe. But all that was accepted by the young officers and their men infused with a spirit to serve their nation.

While different narrators, speaking in turns, add depth to each account, but they also bring their unique perspectives that broaden our understanding of the nature of challenges being faced. So, while we continuously hear of the courage, sacrifice, and determination.

Brig. Mohammad Arbi Khan, of 104 Engineering Battalion, adds a totally new dimension when he describes the creation of first suspension bridge on River Hunza for heavy vehicles. He talks of intricate mathematical calculations and explains that when you are putting up a bridge of 400 feet plus then the margin of error is not more than two inches.

Listening to him reminded this writer of the days in Mangla Cantt when I was struggling with high school Physics– the most challenging subject I have ever read in my entire life. We soon hear another narrator, who describes how at one point even the US help was sought for strengthening the Challas Airport that was subsequently used by PIA to bring heavy equipment through special flights.

Documentary acknowledges, through credits, its several narrators towards the end; each one had a distinct voice and a tale to tell, but they are far too many to be individually identified with their comments here. Yet there are few that stand out for the information they add and the sense of belief they bring into this story of courage, dedication and achievement.

Where Men and Mountains Meet

These are Brig. Mohammad Mumtaz Khalid of 36 PMA who also happens to be the author of the History of Karakoram Highway; Col. Sajid Baseer Sheikh of 108 Engineering Battalion who was the first officiating captain to command between 1969 and 1971 and Maj. Gen Sabih Uddin Bokhari of 173 Engineering Battalion. Speaking in rapid turns within the first 20 minutes of this documentary they set the tone for a narrative of courage and indefatigable spirit against unusual odds.

And it is from them that we hear that KKH is the highest paved road in the world and that during the 1965 war when the US suddenly stopped military supplies to Pakistan, China started supplying some military hardware and all of that used to come via air flights. When Gen. Bahadur Sheikh headed a delegation to China after the 1965 war, he met Premier Zhou En Lai who told him that, “we should have a road between our two countries”

One odd exception among the narrators – who are mostly all army engineers is country’s prominent writer, Mustanzir Hussain Tarrar. He reminds us that when message of premier Zhou En Lai was received and understood by President Ayub Khan and the project of KKH was being conceived international planners, engineers and architects of all sorts were also invited.

One German expert on realizing the scope of ambition – through Khunjerab Pass had cynically said, “let the Pakistanis do it”. He believed that the whole idea was stupid and unworkable. But when his pessimistic comments were conveyed to President Ayub Khan he ordered immediate start of work.

There was no PC-1, no formal sanctions or allocations. Army was simply told to go ahead and find ways and means to conceive, plan and develop the highway. It started with Corps of Army Engineers who were already working on Indus Valley Road (IVR) and soon led to the birth of Frontier Works Organization (FWO).

Documentary informs us that work was assigned to Group 491 and Group 492 of FWO. Group 492 was to construct KKH from Besham to Gilgit and Group 491 was to work on the road from Gilgit to Khunjerab. We do hear from Mej. Gen (retd) Muhammad Afsar of the erstwhile Group 492 and Col. Tanvir Ahmed of Group 491. We get to understand that the initial work on the 14 feet wide pilot road was started without any heavy equipment; it was human hands armed with old fashioned spades and shovels – men with a spirit.

This is what was summed up by the Pakistan’s philosopher writer, Mustanzir Hussain Tarrar, at one point, in the 41st minute of this documentary when he argues that “KKH represents the spirit of Pakistanis; it shows what we can achieve – if we want to”. The added emphasis on “when we want to” leaves viewer with lots of difficult questions in his head.

The documentary film has been made by Delirium Productions in association with the Frontier Works Organisation and has been marketed by ISPR through its social media outreach. ISPR in recent years has emerged as a powerful national media platform with almost five million followers on its Official YouTube Channel.

Where Men and Mountains Meet

While ISPR has some good inhouse facilities too but mostly it acts a catalyst and mentor that supports ideas of national interest and importance. But this work would not have been possible without FWO’s strong support and inspiration. Leaving everything aside the element of meticulous research amazes you. On 31st October 2021, FWO had celebrated its 55th anniversary.

The documentary appears to be part of this national strategic organization’s 55th birthday and its broadcast on 1st Jan, 2022 may represent delays in production. But looking at the kind of meticulous research and production work that has gone into it one can understand the delays.

And Pakistanis not used to such a well-developed narrative on their own history are demanding that there should be an English version of this documentary film for the wider world. This publication also expects that a version of “Where Men and Mountains Meet” in either English dubbing, in Pakistani voices, or at least sub-titles is much needed.

Pakistan Pavilion at Dubai Expo 2020: The Hidden Treasure

Dubai Expo 2020 is a World Expo that was kick-started on September 30 and will last till the end of March 2022. Originally scheduled for October 20, 2020, to April 10, 2021, it was postponed due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Despite being postponed, organizers kept the name Expo 2020 for branding purposes. But this is not the only confusion in minds about “Dubai Expo-2020.”

Many here wonder if this is something specific to Dubai. Not at all, this amazing thing which is being witnessed by this region for the first time is an international fair that was first organized in London in 1951 – in the heydays of Victorian Britain’s industrial era.

List of World Expos – shortened for expositions – is an annotated list of every world exposition or great fair sanctioned by the Paris-based Bureau International des Expositions (BIE), including those recognized, retrospectively, as they took place before BIE came into existence in 1928.

 

When Victorian England held its first show to exhibit the European world’s industrial advancement, it was called the “Great Exhibition of London” (sometimes referred to as the Great Fair in works of fiction), and it mainly was about industry and technology. But in today’s post-modern world, of which Dubai aspires to be a part, this has assumed multiple dimensions about art, culture, and society.

Dubai Expo has its overarching themes: Opportunity, Sustainability, and Mobility. These themes have become ‘districts’ spread amongst the 438-hectare area of the Exposition. Pakistan has classified itself under “Opportunity.”

Pakistan Pavilion

Muhammad Aurangzeb
President & CEO – HBL

“Through the Dubai Expo, the Bank would like
to invite other investors to come and explore
the untapped potential of Pakistan. I would like
to thank the Governments of Pakistan and UAE
for providing us with this opportunity to engage
with an all-embracing community of bankers,
financiers, thought leaders, and international
experts from all walks of life, and look forward
to their continued support. I would also like
to congratulate the organizers of the Dubai
Expo for the successful execution of the event,
enabling us to represent a modern, progressive,
and inclusive Pakistan.”

Today designation “World Exposition” or “Expo” refers to a class of the largest, general scope exhibitions of 3 to 6 months’ duration. Initially, this five-year interval was not necessary, but now this is an imposition by BIE – perhaps to save national expenditures.

The Bureau International des Expositions (BIE) general assembly in Paris named Dubai as the host on November 27, 2013.

As referred above, the main site of Expo 2020 Dubai is a 438-hectare area (1083 acres) located between the cities of Dubai and Abu Dhabi, near Dubai’s southern border with Abu Dhabi. The master plan, designed by the American firm HOK is organized around a central plaza, entitled Al Wasl, enclosed by three large thematic districts.

Each one is dedicated to one of the sub-themes of Expo 2020 – Opportunity, Mobility, and Sustainability. Orascom and BESIX built the infrastructure of the 4.38 km2 Expo 2020 site.

The opening ceremony, on September 30, featured performances by Italian tenor Andrea Bocelli (“The Prayer”), British singer Ellie Goulding (“Anything Could Happen”), Beninese singer Angelique Kidjo and Saudi singer Mohammed Abdu (a duet of John Legend’s “If You’re Out There”), American singer Andra Day (“Rise Up”), and Chinese pianist Lang Lang, among others.

The opening declaration was made by the Emir of Dubai Sheikh Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum. A Pakistani delegation headed by Adviser to PM on Commerce and Investments, Razzaq Dawood, was there for the first two days.

Pakistan Pavilion & land of “Opportunity”

As mentioned above, Pakistan has classified itself under the theme of “Opportunity,” and several Pakistani companies are supporting Pakistan Pavilion in the Dubai Expo. The country’s largest bank, HBL, and the largest exporting association, APTMA, both have taken a huge lead in supporting this initiative.

HBL takes pride in being the Pakistani bank with the longest on-ground presence in UAE. Given the large size of Pakistani ex-pats in the UAE, the bank has been playing an important role in facilitating financial flows into Pakistan. The Bank has always viewed its relationship with the UAE from a long-term perspective.

This is based on the strong historical trade and cultural ties between UAE and Pakistan, and therefore with the approval of the Central Bank of UAE, HBL opened its offices in 1967 in the UAE. It remains committed to supporting the Central Bank of the UAE as a member of the banking system supervised by the Central Bank.

Pakistan Pavilion

Sheikh Mohammed bin Rashid
Al Maktoum
Prime Minister of the United Arab Emirates

“In today’s highly interconnected world, a renewed
vision of progress and development based on
shared purpose and commitment is key. While
a married human mind, an individual country,
or a specific community is both unique and
remarkable, it is by working collaboratively
that we truly advance.”

It also uses UAE as a regional hub to run its business across the Middle East, given UAE’s prominence as a Regional Business Centre and is thus playing its unique role in the growth of the UAE economy.

Five cities had originally bid for the slot for a world’s fair in 2020: Dubai (UAE), Yekaterinburg (Russia), Izmir (Turkey), and São Paulo (Brazil). Dubai Expo 2020 became the first-ever Middle Eastern Exposition when all others were knocked down.

São Paulo was eliminated from contention after the first round of votes. Izmir was knocked out in the second. Yekaterinburg lost to Dubai in the third and final round of voting.

The UAE selected the theme “Connecting Minds, Creating the Future” and the sub-themes Sustainability, Mobility, and Opportunity.

On November 27, 2013, when Dubai won the right to host the expo 2020, fireworks erupted at the world’s tallest building, Burj Khalifa. A national holiday was declared the following day for all educational institutions across the country. The Dubai Ruler promised Dubai would “astonish the world,” in 2020.

The staging of the world fair and the preparations leading up to were expected to result in 277,000 new jobs in the UAE, an injection of nearly $40 billion into the economy, and an increase in visitors of at least 25 million and up to 100 million. The world’s tallest commercial tower to be built in Dubai, in Jumeirah Lake Towers, was given the name “Burj 2020” in honor of the World Expo 2020.

But many things have not gone the way the Dubai establishment had envisaged in 2013. Due to the pandemic Expo is starting at the end of 2021, EU Parliament and many human rights organizations have still protested the timing of the Expo, considering such a large collection of humanity a health risk.

This has taken some of the shine away from the great Exposition, and that much fewer people will attend- yet much is there to connect minds, learn, experience, and celebrate over the next six months.

Pakistan’s Pharma: An Industry Set to Rise

When in September of 2021 (16-17 Sept), Pakistan’s PM Imran Khan dashed to Dushanbe, Tajikistan, to attend SCO’s 20th summit, there was another little-noticed activity going on beyond the glare of tv cameras.

On Sept 14, Sixty-six Pakistani businessmen also reached Dushanbe – 13 of them were CEO and top decision-makers of the country’s pharmaceutical industry. This represented an initiative by Pakistan’s Ministry of Commerce. Trade and Development Authority (TDAP), an autonomous wing of the ministry, had arranged a specially chartered plane, from PIA, for this trip.

On Sept 16, when PM Imran Khan addressed the first-ever Pakistan-Tajikistan Business Forum in a local hotel, pharma executives were busy meeting and signing MOUs with their counterparts from across Tajikistan. In July, when PM Khan had visited Tashkent, Uzbekistan, few pharma executives also accompanied him.

Pharma
Mr. Abdul Samad, General Manager International Marketing, Nabiqasim Group receiving exporters award (PESA-21)

On Sept 29, Pakistan Pharma Manufacturer’s Association (PPMA) held its first-ever Exporters Summit & Awards Ceremony (PESA-21) in Islamabad’s Serena Hotel; fifty exporters were shortlisted for awards on the recommendations of TDAP. PM’s Adviser on Commerce, Razaq Dawood, stood there to speak and distribute these trophies.

These little-known events mark the arrival of a new export industry from Pakistan – Pharmaceuticals. However, its current statistics look unimpressive with market size of around Rs. Five hundred fifty billion (US$ 3.5 billion) and exports of US$ 250 million pharma industry looks like a weak infant as compared to other sectors like textiles or even IT – but the industry and its analysts believe that it has vast potential to grow.

While the export figure of $ 250 million looks abysmally small but keep in mind that it has steadily grown from the mere US $ 44.4 million in 2003. Industry insiders claim that exports from the sector could reach US$ 0.5-1 billion in about 3 to 5 years— and  after reaching this critical mass, export growth could become exponential.

Mr. Jalal Uddin Zafar, Senior General Manager, Nabiqasim Group receiving exporters award (PESA-21)

“Pharmaceutical Exports can exhibit hypergrowth
in few years if Non Adjustable Sales Tax on
import of Plant, Machinery & Equipment can
be exempted so that the manufacturers can
invest on FDA, MHRA and EMA approved
manufacturing facilities in the country.”

Mr. Jalal Uddin Zafar
Senior General Manager, Nabiqasim Group

Outgoing Chairman, Tauqeer Ul Haq, claimed in his speech on Sept 29 that in five years, industry’s exports could surpass $ 2 billion – other CEO’s that spoke to GVS teams on the sidelines of this Awards ceremony were confident that pharma exports could reach $ 5 billion within the next few years – provided the government in Islamabad sets its house in order, reforms Drug Regulatory Authority of Pakistan (DRAP) and comes up with a well thought out regulatory and export policy the way neighboring India did when it created PharmExcil.

This confidence of the pharma manufacturers has been growing for the past several years. Pandemic and the rise of India and China on the global horizon has somehow further contributed to this. India’s pharma exports in 2021 have surpassed US$ 24 billion.

There are huge differences between India and Pakistan; New Delhi has a huge domestic market of 1.3 to 1.4 billion people; it manufactures around 40 percent of Active Pharma Ingredients (API) of the world backed by a powerful chemical industry that is supported by excellent research.

Mr. Nadeem Khalid, CEO, Herbion Naturals receiving exporters award (PESA-21)

“Pakistan can emerge as a global player only if
the industry is willing to invest in upgrading
their facilities, systems and accomplishing
international certifications and our regulators
are willing to adapt to the international best
practices and start thinking out of box. Without
accumulation of capital for investment in the
local market, one cannot imagine entering the
global markets. We need to shift our focus from
targeting low hanging fruits of African markets
to developed markets of EU, North America
and middle and Far East. An archaic industry
and outdated regulatory practices are a sure
recipe for disaster.”

Mr. Nadeem Khalid
CEO Herbion Naturals

Yet, there are certain potential similarities within Pakistan that give hope to industry insiders who point out to Pakistan’s growing population (currently around 250 million), the large availability of pharmacy graduates, English speaking workforce, and non-branded generic markets in the region and across the world being vacated by India and China as they move towards more branded medicines. A sympathetic government in Islamabad is adding to these hopes.

Unfortunately, little exists in terms of professional analysis on the industry – with one exception. This study titled “Unleashing the Potential of Pharmaceuticals in Pakistan” was part of the Pakistan Business Council’s (PBC) Make-in-Pakistan initiative in 2020.

To carry out this sector Study, PBC had engaged the services of the Consortium for Development Policy Research (CDPR). The primary objective of this study was to help formulate a set of policy recommendations to allow the sector to attain its true potential.

Choudhry Muhammad Israr Sharif, MD & CEO, Genix Pharma receiving exporters award (PESA-21)

This study, which appeared in the second half of 2020, when pandemic’s effects on global pharma were already visible, provides an in-depth overview and analysis of the pharmaceutical sector of Pakistan to determine its economic outlook.

A comprehensive assessment was presented that could help Pakistan become a cost-efficient manufacturer of high-quality generic drugs and potentially evolve into more lucrative product offerings such as super-generics and vaccines.

However, the researchers and writers of the study pointed out that this will require taking key steps today that could help the industry’s transition over the next 5-10 years. Through detailed analysis of the bottlenecks at every stage of the pharmaceutical value chain, the study determined the most binding factors that must be overcome to ensure this.

Mr. Fazli Hanan, CEO, Focus & Rulz Pharmaceuticals receiving exporters award (PESA-21)

“How do we increase exports? Well look at how
India did it. It increased its pharma exports
in the last ten years from $ 5 billion to $ 24
billion by removing the industry from under
the Health Ministry and creating a one window
called Pharmexcil, which was brought under the
Ministry of Commerce. In Pakistan, Pharma
is under the Health Ministry, which can be
detrimental since Import and exports, and
pricing should be separate because the Health
Ministry does not have the expertise, capacity,
or the will to help it grow in the export market.
Second, the government also needs to encourage
active product ingredients manufacturers in
Pakistan. Presently pharmaceuticals have only
10 percent of the material factories in Pakistan
and 90 percent of the materials we import from
India and China, the very countries we have to
compete within the international market after
manufacturing the final product.”

Mr. Fazli Hanan
CEO, Focus & Rulz Pharmaceuticals

This research was complemented with global insights on best practices from peer countries India, Jordan, Bangladesh, and Malaysia that were historically similar to Pakistan and have since expanded their exports at least tenfold over the last 15-20 years.

Researchers argued that the global pharmaceutical markets are in flux due to major restructuring; there is an opportunity to strategically enter the global off-patent drugs market that will be worth US$ 700 billion in branded generics and US$ 381 billion in simple generics by 2025. The study pointed out that in 2019 Pakistan’s total exports in these lines were around US$ 210 million. (Now, in 2021, around $250 million).

Researchers pointed out that developed countries have shifted focus to large molecules, called biologics, and this has created opportunities for developing countries to fill the gap for production of cost-efficient, competing for small-molecule therapeutics, especially for high-quality me-too generics, super-generics, and simpler biologics like vaccines and antisera.

Mr. Zahid Saeed, Group Managing Director, Indus Pharma receiving exporters award (PESA-21)

“Pakistan Pharma Industry is fulfilling the
healthcare needs of the Pak population by a
continued supply of affordable and quality
medicines, which was evident in the recent
pandemic. Likewise, we alone can become
one of the key export verticals of Pak due
to the industry’s focus on becoming globally
competitive, given a proper support mechanism
and encouraging trade policy from GOP, and
support the economy to achieve sustainable
growth and also build Pakistan global image.”

Mr. Zahid Saeed
Group Managing Director, Indus Pharma

The argument thus runs that Pakistan – with a local market of 250 million consumers and more than 700 pharmaceutical companies – is poised well to gain from opportunities provided under these global shuffling patterns of supply and demand.

However, the current practice of simply importing 90-95 percent of the raw material, compounding active ingredients with excipients, coating the pills, and packaging the drugs cannot continue to be the long-term goal of Pakistan’s pharma sector.

Pakistan’s potential can be harnessed through an urgently needed sectoral growth strategy and corresponding action plan, overhauling the regulatory regime, deregulation of drug prices, strengthening intellectual property rights, and a consistent policy regime – like witnessed in India and later Bangladesh. These reforms can address, to a large extent, the unique features of the market that have stunted its transition to maturity.

Syed Jamshed Ahmed, Deputy CEO, PharmEvo receiving exporters award (PESA-21)

“A broader, more diversified, and global
perspective will help propel the pharmaceutical
sector in the right direction. It remains vital to
solicit the government’s support, incentives,
and positive policies to encourage the pharma
sector to introduce the “Made in Pakistan”
product mix globally.”

Syed Jamshed Ahmed
Deputy CEO, PharmEvo

Pakistan’s strict price controls and stagnant retail prices over the past 20 years have driven most multinationals out of this market – in one or the other form. This has given opportunities to local pharma producers to grow and control a bigger share of the market.

But this ‘price control” has distinct disadvantages – which is now hitting the local pharma producers who want to become big and expand in new markets through research and development. With MNCs not contributing to new drug registrations at the same rate as other regional countries, the registration of new molecules in Pakistan has fallen.

This is attributed to two reasons. Firstly, delays in the regulatory channel have led to lower registrations, with new molecule registrations pending before the federal cabinet for nearly three years.

So even though DRAP and the pricing committee may complete their evaluation and pricing recommendation in a timely manner, as per the Drug Act 1976, pricing must be approved by the Cabinet, even for generic molecules. This situation is unique to Pakistan and leads to unnecessary delays. Secondly, this is because compared to the early years of 2000, the number of new applications for molecule registrations has also fallen.

Analysis of Pakistan’s pharmaceutical industry – its opportunities and challenges – lie in its value chain. The value chain comprises three major components: manufacturing, distribution, and dispensing to the end-user. And each stage has its own peculiar set of problems that need to be addressed intelligently by the government. Pharma industry – unlike the textiles – does not have the kind of muscle that is needed to force a government into action.

Markets for Pakistan & Challenges of API

The key potential markets for Pakistan – industry insiders argue – are in Africa, East, and Central Asia, where Pakistan’s main competitors are India, China, Jordan, Kenya, and sometimes Malaysia. Given that India, Vietnam, and Bangladesh are also supplying these markets, Pakistan could potentially gain entry.

Pharma
Pakistan’s Pharmaceutical Regional Exports Opportunities

However, access to low-priced APIs is critical for any pharmaceutical sector based on drug formulation. This basic sector is weakly developed in Pakistan, with 6-7 local manufacturers producing a little over 30 APIs. Domestic producers are protected by import tariffs ranging from 5 to 25 percent and supply 12 percent of the local market.

Despite having one of the largest birth rates in the world (5.5 million babies in 2019), Pakistan has virtually no domestic vaccine production. The acquisition of vaccine manufacturing capabilities can be a first step towards the production of next-generation, high-value pharmaceuticals in Pakistan.

The global market for human vaccines was valued at USD 33 billion in 2019 by the WHO Global Vaccine Market Report 2020 – after the pandemic, this is set to become much larger in coming years.

Way forward for Pakistan’s Pharma Exports

PBC study of 2020 had made very valuable recommendations. Most of these have not been addressed even after almost a year. Pakistan has opportunities in view of changing global dynamics, but it needs a dedicated body that coherently translates a government vision for the country’s pharmaceutical sector.

The regulatory environment needs serious reforms, and DRAP, like other regulators, must fall under the purview of the Cabinet. The pricing role of DRAP and export licensing must immediately shift to the Ministry of Commerce. And the government has to work on phased price deregulation; politicians and the media have to be educated to understand that realistic market-based prices are needed for quality products.

The key policy changes that could support companies in establishing a global presence are: Including the pharmaceutical sector in the five priority export sectors of the country; a dedicated body for the pharmaceutical sector with trade, diplomatic and technical wings to implement the 5-year action plan.

Government must allow contract manufacturing without limitation. It needs to pursue a policy of developing vaccine manufacturing capabilities under public-private arrangements, where the government agrees to long-term buy-back for locally produced vaccines. Without the Trump government’s generous support, Pfizer’s Corona vaccine would not have been possible.

Pakistan’s Ministry of Commerce, using the Export Development Fund (EDF), may conduct product and market studies focused on Africa, Central, and East Asia, as is done in India by PharmExcil.

DRAP should continue its own reforms for quality regulation and enforcement, for e.g., by DRAP achieving international standards, clearing certifications as per WHO Global Benchmarking Tool, and attaining the PIC/S membership, which could allow access to SRA countries.

Finally, while unregulated or lowly regulated markets in Africa or Central Asia can provide opportunities for Pakistani pharma, the real prize lies in regulated markets of Europe and North America. India currently boasts around 650 FDA-approved pharma units – Pakistan has none.

Admittedly, such approvals are expensive and tedious, but the Pakistani industry has ultimately to move towards international standards to break into more lucrative markets. The government, to begin with, could legislate and enforce minimum consistent quality standards for any manufacturer that wants to operate in Pakistan.

WHO-approved laboratories that meet international standards and operate independently may be set up as Public-Private Partnerships (PPP). For vaccines production, DRAP must apply for and achieve WHO certification of its National Control Laboratory for Biologics (NCLB). A global presence requires the up-gradation of plants and premises to achieve GMP and other quality compliances.

Putin and Imran Khan: Speaking with one voice on Afghanistan?

Russian President, Putin, and Pakistan’s PM Imran Khan surprised the world when they spoke with one voice on Afghanistan during the just concluded 20th summit of SCO. Dr. Moeed Pirzada, Editor Global Village Space analyses from Dushanbe, Tajikistan. 

Russia and Pakistan join forces at Dushanbe, Tajikistan

Putin and Imran Khan, leaders of Russia and Pakistan displayed a remarkable consensus, on Afghanistan, during Shanghai Cooperation Organization’s (SCO) 20th summit meeting that ended in Tajikistan’s capital Dushanbe, in the evening of 17th September. Both described Taliban government as the “new reality” in Afghanistan, urged SCO members and the international community to engage Taliban and demanded Washington to defreeze Afghanistan’s funds citing the current approach of funds freeze as unhelpful. Both hoped that international community – meaning the United States and NATO allies – will take regional consensus emanating from SCO summit with the seriousness it deserves.

Much was happening in Dushanbe, Tajikistan’s beautiful capital, between 14th and 17th of September. It was not merely a summit meeting of SCO heads of state but a parallel meeting of Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO) a Russian led regional security organisation was also happening at the same time.

This was further compounded by the presence of observers and delegations of new dialogue partners. Ebrahim Raisi, President of Iran was personally present to formally kick start the process of Iran’s inclusion as SCO’s 9th member. Iran was an observer since 2005 and its inclusion was principally being pushed by Russia. Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Qatar also started formal process as “Dialogue Partners” underscoring SCO’s growing importance as an international organization.

Amidst this unusual gathering of regional and international leadership the focus was primarily on the emerging reality in Afghanistan. The importance of focus on Afghanistan can be understood from the fact that not only it was on the agenda of all eight SCO heads of state in their speeches to the SCO summit in the first half of Friday (Sept, 17) but it was the sole agenda of a joint SCO/CSTO summit meeting held in the second half of Friday (afternoon session) where each head of the state expressed his concerns on the situation in Afghanistan, offered suggestions for the way forward on how to engage Taliban and what to expect from them.

It was in these two sessions, one after the other, that the unexpected consensus or alignment between Moscow and Islamabad surprised many diplomats and media observers.

Taliban: Afghanistan’s New Reality  

President Putin, in his address to the SCO summit, argued that “SCO is by right one of the most influential centres of the multi-polar architecture of international cooperation, making a significant contribution to security in the Eurasian region, its sustainable socioeconomic growth, and international peace and stability as a whole”

Putin then went on to state that, “..right now, our organisation is facing an urgent task of launching a common coordinated policy, which would take into account the serious risks related to the surge of tension in Afghanistan after the hasty pull-out, if not to say flight, of the US forces and their NATO allies from that country. All of us are well aware that the developments in Afghanistan are directly projected to the security interests of the SCO member states, all the more so that a number of SCO states have a common border with Afghanistan”

Imran Khan, Pakistan’s PM, in the same session, speaking from a prepared script, told the leaders, diplomats and audience – with more than 200 reporters and editors from across the region, like this scribe, and beyond listening – that “…most significantly, Afghanistan is, rightfully, the focus of our attention in view of the recent developments”

Khan then emphasised that, “..As a country that has continuously suffered from the spill-over of conflict and instability in Afghanistan and borne the burden of nearly 4 million refugees for 40 years, Pakistan has an abiding interest in a peaceful and stable Afghanistan..” Pakistani PM was more cautious than Russian President in his comments on the sudden US exit from Kabul, nevertheless he added, “The sudden change of the previous government which surprised everyone, the takeover by the Taliban, and the full withdrawal of foreign forces, has established a new reality in Afghanistan”

However, it was his comment that, “…that all this happened without bloodshed, without civil war, and without mass exodus of refugees, should be a matter of relief” later alerted many amongst the listeners when they heard President Putin saying that “It is true that the change of power there was almost bloodless, which is definitely a positive factor. The Taliban currently controls nearly the entire territory of Afghanistan, and it would be reasonable to encourage the new Afghan authorities to implement their own promises of peace, normal civil life and security for all”

Putin’s position almost echoed the Pakistani PM who had said earlier “For their part, the Taliban must fulfil the pledges made above all for inclusive political structure where all ethnic groups are represented. This is vital for Afghanistan’s stability. Also, it is important to ensure respect for the rights of all Afghans and ensure that Afghanistan is never again a safe haven for terrorists”

In his speech, Imran Khan said. “Going forward, we believe positive engagement of the international community with Afghanistan is extremely important. There is a rare opportunity to finally end the 40 years of war in Afghanistan; this moment should not be squandered.  It would be unwise at this critical juncture to spread negativity, or indulge in mischievous propaganda, as some spoilers have sought to do. This will only serve to undermine the prospects for peace, to the detriment of Afghan people”

Moments later, Putin, reading from his script, said, “ I believe that we must use the organisation’s potential to provide all-round assistance to launching an inclusive intra-Afghan peace process and, simultaneously, to block the threats of terrorism, drug trafficking and religious extremism coming from that country. Therefore, I regard the initiative of holding a joint meeting of the SCO and CSTO leaders today as very important and useful. This will allow us to hold an in-depth discussion of our two organisations’ practical interaction on the Afghan track and to coordinate our efforts with due regard for the specific features and powers of the SCO and the CSTO”

Joint SCO/CSTO Summit, Friday Sept 17

In the joint SCO/CSTO session on Afghanistan, in the second half of Friday (Sept 17) the consensus between Pakistani and Russian positions was even more clear. Referring to the sudden US withdrawal from Afghanistan, PM Imran Khan said, “The situation has evolved to this point in a rather unexpected way. The foreign forces had to withdraw one day; we wish this had proceeded in a more certain and predictable manner. The meltdown of Afghan security forces and collapse of the Afghanistan government was as sudden as it was unanticipated. Yet, the transition occurred without any bloodshed, which for Pakistan is a matter of great relief. The prospect of a civil war which was our biggest worry seems to have been averted, for now”.

In the same session Putin, clearly rejoicing in the American flight from Afghanistan, said: “Our colleagues’ remarks indicate that our states share similar approaches to responding to the threats that have been emanating from Afghanistan since the Americans left it in haste, or perhaps I should say fled, along with their NATO allies. They all left behind an open Pandora’s box full of problems caused by terrorism, drug trafficking, organised crime and, unfortunately, religious extremism. We witnessed it only recently. Our Pakistani colleague mentioned the airport terrorist attack. The Western community left, abandoning an entire arsenal of modern weapons, military equipment and munitions”

Putin was however concerned that while mass exodus of refugees has not taken place -as pointed by Imran Khan – but given the fears of instability in Afghanistan, criminal infiltration from a chaotic country cannot be ruled out.

And in terms of future challenges and solutions once again Russian position was closer to Pakistan than most listeners would have expected. Imran Khan said: “At this moment, there are two stark choices before the international community: Enhance engagement or abandon Afghanistan again as happened after Soviet withdrawal. Abandoning Afghanistan could take us back to an unstable situation resulting in civil strife, negative spill-over effect on neighbouring countries, outflow of refugees, rise in terrorist incidents, drug trafficking and transnational organized crime. Engagement, therefore, in our view, is the only way forward. The international community must approach the new reality in Afghanistan with a new perspective, based on a realistic assessment and pragmatic approach. Our core collective interest has to be to help stabilize the security situation, prevent any renewed conflict, and prevent mass exodus”.

If this was Pakistani position then world heard President Putin arguing to SCO and CSTO heads of state, “I am convinced that it is certainly in our common interests to help Afghanistan achieve peace and stability, at long last. Owing to historical, socioeconomic, ethnic-cultural and geographic reasons, this country should, objectively speaking, be an inalienable part of the Eurasian security and cooperation system. And, of course, we are extremely interested in seeing Afghanistan assert itself as an independent, neutral, integral and democratic state free from terrorism, war and drugs, living in peace and accord with its neighbours. In this context, the launch of sustainable, efficient and result oriented intra-Afghan dialogue involving all (I want to underscore this), precisely all ethnic, religious and political groups of Afghan society has special significance”

Russia and Pakistan both demanded an inclusive government from Taliban

Both Pakistan and Russia made similar demands to Taliban for an inclusive government describing their current set up as interim and something that needs to be broadened in the larger interest of Afghanistan and the region.

Imran Khan, reading from his script told Taliban, “It is equally in our interest to ensure that Afghanistan does not again become a safe haven for any terrorist entity. For this, the Taliban must take every measure to honour their commitments. The promise of an inclusive political structure should also be fulfilled. Peace will only be consolidated with national reconciliation”

Putin’s words may have been different, but the substance was almost identical when he said, “…And, of course, we are extremely interested in seeing Afghanistan assert itself as an independent, neutral, integral and democratic state free from terrorism, war and drugs, living in peace and accord with its neighbours. In this context, the launch of sustainable, efficient and result oriented intra-Afghan dialogue involving all (I want to underscore this), precisely all ethnic, religious and political groups of Afghan society has special significance…”

He went on to say, “…the Taliban movement, which has become virtually the complete master of the country, has established its own government that has assumed responsibility for the future of Afghanistan. According to the Talibs themselves, this is an interim government, and it cannot be called truly all-inclusive; nor does it represent all segments. We do not see representatives of other ethnic groups here, but it appears that we, of course, should also work with it”

In terms of way forward, Pakistani premier argued, “…attempts to demonize the Taliban and fuel internal tensions should be rejected. Such a myopic and unwise approach being adopted by some will only compound the challenges, not resolve them” and he appealed to the joint SCO/CSTO forum that, “The international community must reach out to reaffirm their support and solidarity with the Afghan people at this critical juncture. Sustained international humanitarian assistance and economic support will save lives and underpin stability. Allowing Afghanistan’s frozen assets to be used for the welfare of the Afghan people will also be a step in the right direction”

Putin then referred to the issue of recognition of the new Taliban government in Kabul in these words, “Speaking of recognition, I agree with those who have spoken on this matter that it is necessary to coordinate our position on this issue. We would consider it optimal to launch this dialogue under the expanded Troika format on Afghanistan, and work is now underway in this direction”

He then argued that SCO/CSTO should engage Afghan Taliban, his exact words were, “I would like to recall the earlier Moscow format of consultations on Afghanistan that involved many of our partners from the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation and the CSTO. If necessary, it would be possible to resume its work, with the agreement of all states involved in it”

Putin’s repeated words and references made it clear that he considers Afghanistan’s situation vital to stability across the Eurasian land mass. This is precisely the concern of many across Pakistan’s strategic community – and also those who are referred to as the conspiracy theorists – who wonder if the US and the western institutions will permit a kind of stability in Afghanistan that will provide regional connectivity between South Asia and Eurasian land mass of which Central Asia is a vital component.  Till the middle of 17th century, Europe and Asia were not separately defined but were being referred to as “Eurasian land mass”. Afghanistan provides the connect between the north and south of this land mass.

Putin’s words were important when he told the SCO/CSTO leaders, “..moreover, the SCO’s extensive partner network allows us – by consensus – to involve other multilateral Eurasian associations in our joint efforts, and to cooperate effectively with the UN Assistance Mission in Afghanistan and other UN agencies. I would like to emphasise that we must look at systemic steps on synchronising the activities of the SCO, CSTO and other regional associations not only as a means of resolving urgent problems but also as the groundwork for creating a common space of equal and indivisible security in Eurasia”

If Pakistan’s Imran Khan has been continuously telling the west to support Afghanistan’s transition towards stability, then now Putin added his weight to his demand by concluding in these very words, “I’m sure that the international community will not ignore the joint meeting of the SCO and CSTO leaders. There will probably be some critical remarks about us but judging by the astute discussions of these problems by the participants, we are on the right track and must certainly cooperate in this area.

How all this consensus that was on full display during the two sessions of SCO/CSTO in Dushanbe may have developed? Pakistan’s premier and Russian president are not someone who talk frequently, and both read their respective positions from prepared scripts. These were clearly the foreign offices of Pakistan and Russia speaking together and it shows the hard work that has been done, behind the scenes, by countless diplomats in Islamabad, Moscow and Dushanbe.  While they remain the anonymous unsung heroes, their efforts have succeeded in sending a message from the region to Washington.

What the world does not want to understand about Taliban & Afghanistan

London engraver and cartographer John Spilsbury is credited for producing the first-ever jigsaw puzzle around 1760. However, a further bit of research reveals that the art of cutting painted maps, using saws, into pieces existed much before him – thus the name “jigsaw puzzle.”

Early puzzles, known as dissections, were produced by mounting maps on hardwood sheets and cutting along national boundaries, creating a puzzle useful for teaching geography to students. But the Afghan jigsaw puzzle is more than just geography.

It is about the history of the regions in and around Afghanistan; it is about all those areas we now call Pakistan, Iran, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, and Tajikistan, and it is about Pashtuns, tribal cultures, Islam, and the human mind’s in-built inertia – its resistance to change. But then this resistance of the mind, its refusal to let go, surrender its ideas, is on both sides or perhaps all sides.

Most have heard of the ‘”Great Game,’” a strategic rivalry between the expanding British and Czarist Russian empires in the 19th century. However, far too little is remembered of how it was precisely this mutual fear and insecurity between the English and the Russian imperial systems that forced boundaries of a modern state onto Afghanistan.

Before that, Afghan kings and princes existed – and some of them had been very successful in amassing large territories, such as Ahmed Shah Abdali, who defeated the Maratha empire in 1761 – but they controlled an ill-defined corridor between Persia, Central Asia, and Hindustan.

It was this ill-defined corridor through which generations of invaders descended towards what was then called ‘Hindustan’ – Aitzaz Ahsan’s Indus civilization. One of them was Zaheer Ud Din Babar, the founder of the Mughal Empire who originated in Ferghana, now in modern Uzbekistan, not far from Tashkent. It was an era of city-states.

The Second Anglo-Afghan War (1878–1880) resulted from the refusal by Emir Shir Ali (reigned 1863 to 1866, and from 1868 to 1879) to accept a British diplomatic mission in Kabul. In the wake of this conflict, Shir Ali’s nephew, Emir Abdur Rahman, known as the “Iron Emir,” came to the Afghan throne.

During the reign of Iron Emir (1880–1901), the British and Russians officially established the boundaries of what would become modern Afghanistan – it was thus not by the internal will or political dynamics of the Afghans but by the coercion of the outside powers that wanted to define their frontiers and keep Afghans as a buffer between them.

Abdur Rahman’s reforms of the army, legal system, and a centralized structure of government gave Afghanistan a degree of unity and stability, which it had not known before. But the British, sitting in Delhi – or more appropriately in Rawalpindi cantonment – retained effective control over Kabul’s foreign affairs, a humiliating situation that only ended with the Third Anglo-Afghan War in 1919.

Afghanistan’s Pangs of Modernization

King Amanullah Khan, son of Habib Ullah Khan, moved to end his country’s traditional isolation in the years following the Third Anglo-Afghan war. This was a time when the Muslim ruling elite in all countries – from Turkey to Egypt – wanted to modernize and thus openly advocated western-style secularism. Amanullah established diplomatic relations with most major countries and ended up becoming a great admirer of Kamal Ataturk – the founder of the modern Turkish state.

But Ataturk’s influence first came into his life in 1913, when as a prince, he fell in love with his would-be wife, Soraya, daughter of Mahmud Beg Tarzi. Mahmud Baig subsequently became Amanullah Khan’s Foreign Minister, influenced the young King’s mind, and introduced several reforms intended to modernize Afghanistan.

Tarzi – forgotten today in an Afghan discourse focused on Taliban, America, and ISIS – was Afghanistan’s biggest reformer of the 20th century. He was a poet and philosopher who was fluent not only in his native Pashto but could also converse in Farsi, Dari, Turkish, French, Arabic, and Urdu.

He had spent time in exile in Karachi, Syria, and Turkey under the Ottoman empire in the last decades of the 19th century and had imbibed ideas of a changing world from his exploration of the Middle East and the eastern Mediterranean. He had encountered the great Muslim modernizer of the age, Jamal ad-Din al-Afghani, in Constantinople. Tarzi was an ardent supporter of education for women.

He fought for Article 68 of Afghanistan’s first constitution (declared through a Loya Jirga), which made elementary education compulsory. However, some of the reforms that were put in place, such as the abolition of the traditional Muslim veil for women and the opening of several co-educational schools, quickly alienated many tribal and religious leaders – but that was not the only thing.

Soraya – Mahmud Baig Tarzi’s elegant daughter – who was born in Syria and grew up across the Ottoman world, was the first Queen of Afghanistan in 1926. However, her modernizing influence on Kabul dates to the day young prince Amanullah fell in love with her in 1913 (or earlier). She forced him to renounce his Harem and made him monogamous, accepting her as his only wife – a new thing for an Afghan king.

Queen Soraya: The woman who helped shape modern Afghanistan

Afghanistan Queen Soraya was the first Muslim consort who appeared in public together with her husband, something which was unheard of at the time. She participated with him in the hunting parties, riding on horseback, and in some Cabinet meetings as well. Under the influence of Mahmud Tarzi, Soraya, and the modernizers they brought in, Amanullah drew up the first constitution, establishing the basis for the formal structure of the government and setting up the role of the monarch within the constitutional framework.

Soraya, from 1921 onwards went on to create a revolution in Afghan cultural life; she founded magazines for women like “Ishadul Naswan (Guidance for Women)” and organizations, like “Anjuman-i Himayat-i-Niswan” which promoted women’s welfare. She organized a theatre in Paghman for breaking the isolation of their harems and created an office where women could report mistreatment by their husbands, brothers, and fathers.

Encouraged by Soraya, King Amanullah publicly campaigned against the veil, against polygamy, and encouraged the education of girls not just in Kabul, but also in the countryside. The emancipation of women became part of Amanullah’s reform policy, and the women of the royal family, particularly his wife and sisters, acted as the role models for of this change.

This unveiling of women was a controversial part of the reform policy – -and it was being pushed too fast, and too hard. Women of the royal family already wore Western fashion before the accession of Amanullah, but they did so discreetly only within the enclosed royal palace complex and always covered themselves in a veil when leaving the royal area – the kind of veil that was again seen on the streets of Kabul and Jalalabad after the US occupation (2001-21).

But throughout her husband’s reign, Queen Soraya wore wide-brimmed hats with a diaphanous veil attached to them. Her official portraits, of the 1920s, with bare arms and exposed shoulders, would have created a storm in Hamid Karzai’s Afghanistan.

On August 29th, 1928, Amanullah held a Loya Jirgah, a grand assembly of tribal elders, to endorse his development programs; 1,100 delegates were required to wear European clothes provided for them by the state.

Amanullah was clearly trying to emulate Turkish modernizer Mustafa Kamal Ataturk, who had forced Turkish nobility and later farmers to wear European hats instead of traditional Ottoman-era Turkish Fez. But there were huge differences between a gradually modernizing Turkey across the melting pot of the Mediterranean, and a landlocked tribal Afghanistan.

Modernizers provoked the First Afghan Civil War

King in this Loya Jirgah, argued for women’s rights to education and equality. He told the Jirga that “Islam did not require women to cover their bodies or wear any special kind of veil” and asked his wife to discard her veil. At the conclusion of the speech, it is said that Queen Soraya, in almost an almost dramatic gesture, tore off her veil (hejab) in public, and the wives of other officials present at the meeting followed this example.

After that, Soraya appeared in public without a veil, and the women of the royal family and the wives of government employees followed their example. This policy was also endorsed in Kabul by reserving certain streets for men and women dressed in modern Western clothing. This was the beginning of the first Afghan Civil War (1928-29).

Though the revolt of the Shinwari in November 1928 was quelled, a concurrent Saqqawist uprising in the North eventually managed to depose Amanullah, leading to Habibullāh Kalakāni taking control of Kabul. Soraya and her family found exile in Italy; she never returned before her burial in 1968.

Though, Prince Mohammed Nadir Khan, cousin of Amanullah Khan, King Amanullah Khan and Queen Soraya Tarzi during their tour of Europe circa 1926 soon defeated and executed Habibullāh Kalakāni in November 1929, and was declared King Nadir Khan. But as he began consolidating power and regenerating the country, he abandoned the reforms of Amanullah Khan in favor of a more gradual approach to modernization. In 1933, however, he was assassinated in a revenge killing by a student from Kabul.

Mohammad Zahir Shah, Nadir Khan’s 19-year-old son, succeeded to the throne and reigned from 1933 to 1973 till the coup by his cousin, Sardar Daud Khan, who later fell to the Marxist rebellion under People’s Democratic Party of Afghanistan (PDPA).

What happened in the first quarter of the 20th century marks an important and painful chapter in the Afghan history. In an ill-defined country that was beginning to become a state under the diktat of imperial British and Russians, local ruling elites – imagining themselves to be in Istanbul or Damascus – tried imposing modernity and centralization, and the tribal society, used to its autonomous lifestyle stye and medieval cultural values rebelled against this sudden change. Islam inevitably became the poster of resistance in such a cultural clash – though it was not about Islam.

Marxist Modernizers destroyed the equilibrium of Afghan society

Afghan elite under Zahir Shah and his changing cabinets did not surrender the cause of modernity or centralization – but they were cautious. By 1973, Afghanistan had achieved a new equilibrium of its own with westernized elite living in cities like Kabul and Herat, where women in universities could be found in pants or even skirts, and people from conservative Peshawar used to arrive to enjoy freedoms from the stultifying life of Pakistan’s growing conservatism.

But this Afghanistan that facilitated thousands of tourists trotting the globe and entering Pakistan from Khyber Pass had a balance between the liberal cities and conservative countryside. Then came the mad modernizing Marxists of PDPA – modern day Huns – in the Saur Revolution of 1978, who overthrew and assassinated Sardar Daoud Khan. Their unrelenting fanatic pursuit of modernization, the emancipation of women, and the strong central state ignited the new civil war that has not ended till now.

Once in power, the PDPA implemented a Marxist–Leninist agenda. It moved to replace religious and traditional laws with secular and Marxist–Leninist ones. Men were obliged to cut their beards, women could not wear a chador, and mosques were placed off-limits. The PDPA made a number of reforms on women’s rights, banning forced marriages and giving state recognition of women’s right to vote.

Anahita Ratebzad, a prominent Marxist leader and a member of the Revolutionary Council wrote the famous New Kabul Times editorial (May 28th, 1978) declaring: “Privileges which women, by right must have, are: equal education, job security, health services, and free time to rear a healthy generation for building the future of the country, educating and enlightening women is now the subject of close government attention.” The PDPA also carried out socialist land reforms and moved to promote state atheism.

The PDPA invited the Soviet Union (USSR) to assist in modernizing its economic infrastructure (predominantly its exploration and mining of rare minerals and natural gas). The USSR sent contractors to build roads, hospitals, and schools and to drill water wells; they also trained and equipped the Afghan army.

On paper, all looked good as something that was needed to jolt a medieval rural side into the 20th century. But the accompanying repressions plunged large parts of the country, especially the rural areas, into open revolt against this new Marxist–Leninist government.

By spring 1979, unrest had reached 24 out of 28 Afghan provinces, including major urban areas. Over half of the Afghan army had either deserted or joined the insurrection. Most of the government’s new policies clashed directly with the traditional Afghan understanding of Islam, making religion one of the only forces capable of unifying the tribally and ethnically divided population against the unpopular new government and ushering in the advent of Islamist participation in Afghan politics.

This chaos against the central authority brought the Soviet Army to Kabul in December 1979, and then came CIA, ISI, MI6, RAW and all other troublemakers to fight jihad against infidels. When the Soviets were forced to leave in February of 1988, and Dr. Najib’s communist government fell in 1992, the country was plunged into another civil war – far more fratricidal than all conflicts and wars that had happened before.

Kabul and other cities were not demolished by the Red Army, but by the rockets of the so-called Mujahideen and their rivals from the North. It was this chaos that drove away whatever urban intelligentsia was left in the cities.

And when the Taliban emerged from a shattered countryside in 1994 as products of this chaos, all layers of urban modernizers – the genotypes of Khalid Hosseini, author of Kite Runners – Afghanistan had accumulated since 1880’s had either left, fled, or were killed.

Birth of the Taliban 1.0

Taliban, a product of “Freudian Regression” of a complex social order, were rural men, with a primitive belief system, without any conception or cognizance of the modern world outside their frontiers. Their challenge was widespread chaos and tyranny of war lords and their solutions for justice – floggings, hangings, and amputations – were coming straight from the book of the village mullah.

It’s like, if a civil war destroys Islamabad, denudes it of its complex multi-layered intelligentsia and a new city administration later emerges out of the villages surrounding Islamabad, then that administration naturally will not have the sophisticated cerebral mind that Pakistan’s beautiful capital city has accumulated over the past 60 years.

The New Taliban (Taliban, 2.0) is now an evolved product of a protracted process of war and negotiations. The Doha Agreement Deal between Washington and the Taliban is an important milestone, in the history of this region and the world, that offers us all an exit from the nightmares of the past.

Dealing with these New Taliban through regional and international carrot and stick and financial pipelines offers the best future for gradual modernity for Afghanistan, for women’s education, minority rights, and above all, peace, and stability in the region.

This is not a time for media demonization, diplomatic abandonment, sanctions, freezing funds, and suspending IMF and World Bank programs, but for pursuing engagement with greater vigor. Afghanistan and the world have a chance to bring back the Kabul of the 1970s and heal the wounds of 100 years of war.

Pakistani Politics on edge and PMLN?

Pakistani politics enters mid-2021 amidst interesting national and regional developments; some of these are under the public radar – for instance, the fast-changing situation in Afghanistan – but these could be far-reaching.

The opposition alliance, PDM, has not been able to revive itself despite sincere efforts by PMLN President Shahbaz Sharif; and Imran Khan‘s government appears less and less concerned about the opposition. It is busy defining an economic performance agenda with a view towards the general elections.

Most in the media have also reconciled that short of a miracle, the PTI government is set to rule till the next elections, which may be held around October 2023 – unless the PM, for his own reasons, calls an early election.

With its new finance minister, Shaukat Tareen, talking of moving from “stabilization” towards growth, of seeking a new understanding with IMF and the National Accounting Committee declaring 4 percent growth in this financial year, it’s evident that PTI has started to think that it can win next elections based on the strength of a recovering economy.

Government claims of 4 percent economic growth were backed by most business houses and corporate leaders who have claimed that the economy will actually grow by more than 4 percent this year. And this was not understood earlier because large sectors – like agriculture – are still undocumented.

Opposition violently disagrees with these economic forecasts, but a robust and impressive pre-budget seminar organized by PMLN testifies to the fact that PMLN too has accepted that political debate henceforth will be focused more on economic issues and less on street demonstrations.

Opposition: Fractured in all directions

PDM’s collapse in end-March was a massive loss to the national opposition – and all those in the media that had hoped that Imran Khan government could be kicked out mid-term. While fault lines had always existed between PPP and PMLN, the sudden collapse of the alliance and the war of the words that followed between PPP and PMLN was surprising to most observers.

Fireworks continued throughout April and May, and when Shahbaz Sharif attempted reconciliation, he was rebuffed by the PMLN group led by Ms. Maryam Nawaz. Shahid Khaqan Abbasi, ex-premier, is solidly aligned with Ms. Maryam and often uses even more, stronger words against PPP leaders than her.

The rest of the PMLN leaders remain busy in damage control exercises, offering explanations that differences exist inside all political parties; this is normal and that Shahbaz Sharif is still the President of PMLN.

However, it’s now apparent that the country’s political opposition is currently suffering from multiple fractures. Not only that major parties – PMLN, JUIF, PPP, and ANP – are aligned
against each other, but there are severe and perhaps irreconcilable fault lines inside PMLN.

Nawaz Sharif and his daughter Maryam are not prepared to yield leadership to Shahbaz Sharif and his moderate politics of multi-dimensional rapprochement. PMLN has much soul searching to do on its politics of the past whole decade – especially the strategies adopted by Nawaz Sharif and his angry daughter since the 2013 elections.

For all practical purposes, PMLN is the Grand Old Party of Pakistan that has ruled most of the time since the 1985 party-less general elections and has deep roots in Punjab’s rural populations, military, bureaucracy, judiciary, bar associations, and trading communities.

There are historical reasons for this deep penetration. Its primary and secondary leadership grew out of the anti-Bhutto and anti-left politics of the 1970 and 1980s. This leadership was conservative, nationalist, right of the center, and religious-minded without being overtly Islamist in character. And it was strongly pro-military.

This Punjabi alliance of ultra-conservative traders, wholesalers, shopkeepers, factory owners, and small feudal landlords was cobbled together by the Pakistani establishment to counter the left-leaning, liberal forces of Punjabi intelligentsia unleashed by Bhutto’s PPP -and the political pressures from the US that from the mid-1980s onwards sided with Bhutto’s charismatic daughter: Benazir.

These complex origins explain the continuing sympathies and concessions PMLN leaders still manage to obtain from the GHQ -despite Nawaz Sharif’s public rhetoric. And this is what Bilawal and Zardari make fun of when they question, “If this is one Pakistan” for Raiwind’s PM and others and when Zardari says that “I don’t have the right domicile.”

And this ethnically rooted politics of PMLN – inside the country’s civil-military institutions and judiciary – may also explain PPP’s inherent distrust of Nawaz Sharif. Nawaz, meanwhile, in his third political reincarnation, after his return from Jeddah and reconciliation with PPP (2007- 2013), was then all set to transform his personal rule into a second-generation dynasty.

Changing Dynamics of Pakistani Politics
Leaders of the opposition.

He was smart to realize that his politics of “dynastic continuation” could only be challenged by the military. And he knew that he could not win against the military establishment without aligning himself with the larger international narrative against Pakistan’s military establishment -and its control of politics.

Nawaz thus successfully used the narrative of “democratic civilian supremacy” after the 2013 elections to facilitate the transition towards second-generation dynastic politics – and had almost succeeded in outmaneuvering the military establishment – under the force multiplier of an international narrative – had there not emerged another political animal: PTI under Imran Khan.

PTI, like PPP, had origins in disgruntled Punjabi intellectuals of the 1990s’ – who wanted to change the status quo of Pakistani politics and its domination by Sharifs and Bhuttos. There is much similarity in the political evolution of PPP and PTI. PPP, after Bhutto’s hanging in 1979– managed through Punjabi-dominated courts – ended up becoming a Sindhi party.

Similarly, the Sharif family’s stronghold on Punjabi bureaucracy, military, judiciary, and electoral administration pushed PTI (baptized in Punjab) after the 2013 elections to become a Pathan party from KP – a complexion that continued after the 2018 elections giving rise to the political jokes of “Pathan occupation of Islamabad.”

But despite this facial makeup, PTI remains reasonably popular in Punjab with strong pockets of support in urban areas and among college-educated Punjabi men and women. PMLN, nevertheless, being the “Grand Old Party,” remains hugely popular across central and upper Punjab.

Though there is no objective evidence of massive election day rigging and opposition parties have not brought forward any verifiable material, evidence, or legal cases to that effect – still Sharif family and PMLN have successfully demonized Imran Khan as a “selected” child of the military. This has helped them put the establishment on the defensive – and perhaps extracting concessions from time to time.

PMLN: Need for deeper soul searching

But this strategy of “running with the hare and hunting with the hounds” has its limitations. PMLN’s political base – reflecting the party’s origins – is strongly pro-military. Constituency politicians and vote managers cannot sustain support for a party perceived as overtly anti-establishment.

PMLN’s strategy of propaganda against the establishment to align with western media for “force multiplier effect” and then extracting concessions through back door channels stands exposed and is unsustainable.

Given the principle “enemy of my enemy is my friend,” PMLN’s narrative shaping automatically became intertwined with those domestic, regional, and international elements in media (ethnic separatists, human right activists, foreign-funded NGOs, regional rivals of Pakistan) that were aligned against Pakistan’s establishment for their own geostrategic reasons – and were often funded from abroad.

These optics looked good on Twitter and were a huge force multiplier on social media and in the international press, but ultimately this strategy is self-defeating and alienates PMLN from its power base and its old perennially sympathetic paternal friend: GHQ.

This dissection may help explain the fault line between a realistic Shahbaz Sharif (aged in the corridors of Pakistani politics) and an angry Maryam Nawaz. There is much evidence to suggest that PMLN has been doing course corrections from time to time; it had restrained its shrill anti-establishment narrative by the beginning of 2019 to seek political concessions that saw relief from cases and Nawaz Sharif landing in London.

But the kind of political concessions Sharifs expected did not materialize, and the anti-establishment narrative was invoked again, with a new ferocity, during the PDM movement. Again, it backfired.

This is where PMLN needs an honest soul searching; without fully understanding its origins, its past, and correcting its failed policy of the last decade, PMLN – the Grand Old Party of Pakistan – cannot hope to regain political power through the street agitations, ballot, back channels or sympathetic international persuasions.

Pakistan is neither Turkey nor Bangladesh. PPP, for some reason not fully understood, appears far more confident and saddled on horseback than PMLN, and if someone has emerged as a “national leader” as a result of PDM’s short-lived political bonhomie, then it is undoubtedly Bilawal Bhutto – who sounds far more confident and mature and takes increasingly strong positions on national issues.

But unlike Maryam and Shahid Khaqan Abbasi, Bilawal appears to be in control of himself. He has definitely emerged on Pakistan’s political scene. Though PMLN leaders appearing on TV programs often blame PPP for betrayal and a tacit alliance with PTI, yet Imran Khan’s party seems to be making attempts to buy influence inside the politics of Sindh – by direct spending of federal funds on development works instead of handing grants to the PPP led provincial government.

So apparently, PTI is trying to penetrate into Sindhi politics with a view towards elections – which some sources believe can be held early in October 2022 instead of 2023. But this seemingly smooth trajectory of Pakistani politics can be influenced by external events – as hinted at the outset of this analysis.

In end-May, Pakistan foreign office organized an off-the-record briefing for key politicians and media. This strictly “off the record” briefing by a key source person was under Chatham House Rules.

Yet, much has appeared on TV and press about this interaction. Briefly repeating, Pakistan Foreign Office is convinced that the situation in Afghanistan is fluid and uncertain, and it fears that the US forces may complete their withdrawal by July 4 instead of the scheduled September 11, making it even more uncertain.

Pakistan has made it clear to the Taliban that it will not welcome any military solution by either side, including the Taliban, and a take-over of Kabul by the Taliban will be dangerous, a recipe for another civil war and thus unacceptable to Islamabad.

Pakistani institutions have repeatedly concluded that instability in Afghanistan directly affects Pakistan, its peace, economy, and internal political and social balance. Yet, whatever Pakistan may think, the news pouring in from Afghanistan suggests an intense power struggle happening across most of its provinces, and a civil war looks likely.

The US wants bases in Pakistan to monitor the situation. This will be politically impossible for Imran Khan’s government – however, under US persuasion, this may end up as “air corridors” over Pakistani territory. What will happen next and how the situation unfolding in Afghanistan may influence Pakistan’s political dynamics remains to be seen.

Asad Toor Affair: Exposed Unprofessionalism of Pakistani Media

What will be remembered as the “Asad Toor Affair” has badly exposed the unprofessionalism and moral bankruptcy of Pakistani media, civil-military fault lines of the country, and helplessness of Pakistani state institutions in handling the challenges of globalization and cyberspace.

The net result is that Pakistani state institutions – Police, FIA, and courts – are unable to discipline an ordinary petty mischief monger who slanders fellow journalists, their wives, and other women in media because this obnoxious man conveniently subterfuges and presents himself as a “journalist”.

Given Pakistan’s civil-military divide and heroism attached with being “anti-establishment,” no one in the media bothered to critically examine and understand the actual sequence of events and the veracity of claims being made by an irresponsible character and his loudmouth supporters. Truth, as usual, was the first casualty of this phony war between “Journalism and the State.”

Since western governments, media, and the NGO’s funded from abroad all are united in their venom for Pakistani state institutions so anyone taking shots – however unintelligently conceived these may be – against Pakistani military or ISI – automatically gets applause of BBC, New York Times, Reuters, VOA, DW, US Embassy, Amnesty International, Human Rights Commission of Pakistan and of course Pakistani opposition these days.

This has thus become, for many Pakistanis, the shortest and the easiest route to global fame. No wonder, Stephen Sackur, of Hard Talk BBC, was briefed to describe this foul-mouthed mischief monger as a “famous journalist of Pakistan”.

This majestic characterisation “famous journalist” has badly exposed the political activism of BBC hidden cleverly under the veneer of British media professionalism. It is obvious that BBC teams look at Pakistan only through a cherished narrow funnel and have no balanced view of contemporary Pakistan – or its media world.

Over the past one week, given the extraordinary interest in this so-called, “Asad Toor Affair” much has appeared over social media – Facebook, Twitter, YouTube – and beam viral on the messenger App, WhatsApp. This has already provided facts to many to piece the whole story. But given the implications of this sordid drama – that should remind us of 1997 American film, “Wag the Dog” produced by Berry Levinson and Robert De Niro – for Pakistani media, state and society it’s still important to document its timeline and implications for Pakistani intelligentsia, media, and state institutions. Why these facts were not brought out by mainstream papers and media and why almost all of those entities did “selective reporting” remains a big question. It unfortunately exposes the professional weaknesses and “political activism” of Pakistani media.

Mr. Toor’s Journalistic credentials?

Briefly, Mr. Toor has mostly worked, not as a journalist or correspondent involved with research and writing, but in technical positions as a program producer and has only recently emerged as a political activist with the rise of social media. Within his “political activism” he has emerged as habitual and repeat offender whose specialty lies in making venomous personal attacks on all those he disagrees with. And his attacks on women defy the cherished norms of a Muslim society and South Asian culture.

Given lack of professional understanding, he fails to differentiate between “public office holders” and “common citizens” between “fact” and “rumour” between “fact” and “opinion” and between “ideas” and the “natural persons” who may espouse those ideas. So instead of attacking “ideas” he makes personal attacks and offensive commentaries against the men and women in media who advocate those ideas. In many cases this is to attract attention, win followers and to prove himself “brave”. Somehow rehtorical “bravery” and “courage” on pettiest possible issues have become “sine qua non” of Pakistani media instead of accuracy, research, understanding and articulation of public policy issues.

Most have ignored Mr. Toor’s pathetic attacks because it is commonly believed that Pakistani laws on defamation and harassment are weak, slow, and miserably ineffective and defamation suits have no decisive outcome. For all practical purposes, Pakistan has no effective implementation of laws that can prevent ugly harassment and intimidation of women. This is a huge problem for professional women who work outside their homes in a male dominated world where attacking and disparaging their character through different ways is normal. Despite claiming an Islamic inheritance state institutions and judiciary have not been able to do anything to counter this ugly practice. This was something that also found mention in a recent resolution of EU Parliament while discussing Pakistan’s GSP-plus status.

Though most in media attacked by Mr. Toor ignored him considering it a waste of time given lack of effective law enforcment. Nevertheless in 2017, prominent TV Anchor and journalist, Rauf Klasra, filed a defamation suit against him, and after three long years, or 36 months, he was awarded a mere Rs. One million in damages. Mr. Toor has appealed since then, and Mr. Klasra morally vindicated or perhaps disappointed has probably lost interest – given the unending labyrinthine legal system. This once again proves the total futility of whatever is referred to as “defamation laws of Pakistan. Hundreds of cases are pending in Pakistani courts without any logical conclusion.

Woman Journalist’s Complaint of harassment and intimidation 

On 29th or 30th March, this year, a female morning show host, Ms. Shiffa Yousafzai, of Hum News, filed an application against Mr. Toor, for harassment and intimidation of a working woman, with the Cybercrime Wing of FIA.

Given FIA’s disinterest in an ordinary citizen’s complaint and traditonal “Sarkari” inefficiency these notices took almost a month in reaching him; but when he finally received FIA notices in May, instead of appearing before FIA to explain his position, and ending the matter amiably with an honest apology and deletion of offensive videos, he landed in High Court on the grand plea – symptomatic of megalomania – that the state of Pakistan is after him.

Though FIA Notices clearly identified “Ms. Shiffa Yousafzai” as the complainant (Referring to his YouTube/Twitter) who is a known TV host, is a naturally occurring person, an aggrieved woman who reportedly went to FIA along with her mother to file the complaint but Mr. Toor in his petition totally ignores complaint by “Shiffa Yousafzai” (against whom he made three videos and several tweets) as if she did not exist and there is no such case of causing harassment of a woman. Instead of rejecting Ms. Shiffa’s complaint as untrue he mentions an old petition, of 2020, by some citizen, Hafiz Ehtesham, filed for insulting state institutions, as evidence of the macabre plot that “The State of Pakistan” is after him. it was obvious that he and his lawyer found it difficult to defend his conduct against the woman.

Hafiz Ehtesham’s petition was quashed by a court in September 2020 and was thus totally irrelevant. Toor was so afraid of Ms. Shiffa’s complaint to FIA that he also forgot that in his third video against her, “Exclusive New and Disturbing revelations about Shiffa Yousafzai” (March 2021) he had claimed (after 7th minute till end) that Govt of Pakistan is now using an institution in Pindi (meaning ISPR) and Aabpara (ISI) to build a campaign against him. And that it was told to him by several Anchors and parliamentarians.

Mr. Toor’s intention to play his case to the larger gallery of “journalist versus state” was thus obvious from the very beginning. Since Islamabad police is investigating the May 25, criminal assault against him that is clearly a matter of state (given the nature of his accusations) they now need to bring his testimony on record with names of anchors and parliamentarians who said such things and they need to be cross examined to determine the accuracy of his claims.

Finally the dramatic event that rocked the country’s media happens exactly one week before the second court hearing when he claimed that three intruders forcibly entered his flat, claimed that they were from ISI, tied him up, beat him severely leaving him with bruises on his arms, and forced him to shout “ISI Zindabad”.

If on May 4, he had claimed in court, without any material evidence, that state agencies were after him (a repeat of his March video) then on 25th May, these same state agencies obliged him and vindicated his standpoint by coming to beat him with a public announcement and provided him with “bruised arms” as evidence of the Stalinist state after him.

Fortunately, his injuries were minimal, but their political impact was huge. However hard we may try, it is difficult to ignore that his attackers had turned him from an aggressor facing complaints of harassment and intimidation from a woman into a celebrated victim, a hero of the world of journalism against the supposedly tyrannical state. Suddenly an ordinary mischief-monger, harassing and intimidating a woman, becomes a “brave journalist against a powerful state” -A “David against the Goliath.”

Gul Bukhari coming to Asad Toor’s rescue

But unfortunately, the account was so bizarre that few wanted to believe it. The event led to juicy discussions, articles floating on social media, vlogs, and heated arguments on Twitter Spaces. Most had heard and sincerely believed that ISI agents have in recent years picked up journalists on streets, taken them to safe houses, and grilled or roughed them.

But no one was willing to believe that ISI or any intelligence agency that comes to give you “bruised arms” also makes a public announcement and then leaves you free to record a video that goes viral within minutes. This obvious “weakness” this “credibility gap” in the allegation even dampened the spirits of some of his “support brigade.”

Now a passionate supporter, Ms. Gul Bukhari, has jumped in the fray to fix this “credibility gap” by recording a video, from somewhere outside Pakistan, to explain why poor Toor had been misled to blame ISI. She claims, with supreme confidence, that it has been conclusively discovered that ISI did not beat Mr. Toor but this assault was done by Military Intelligence (MI) along with a prominent TV Anchor, Imran Khan Riaz. And they have staged the drama to put it on ISI. Why another premier state institution like MI, that remains hidden from public eye, will conspire against ISI is never explained in Ms. Bokhari’s twisted world of Harry Potter and Ministry of Magic.

Ms. Bukhari, known for her anti-state views, claimed that out of three intruders, two were from MI (sent by a Colonel) and one was a personal servant of Anchor Imran Khan Riaz.

Interestingly, while the super-intelligent Ms. Bokhari knew such intricate details – about one intruder being a servant of Imran Khan Riaz – she did not even know that Imran Khan is not working with Express-News anymore but does his programs with GNN for at least the past two years.

This brings us to ask: Who is Imran Khan Riaz? In case BBC and Stephen Sackur don’t know; he is one of the most highly paid TV Anchor and is the envy of most in Pakistani media because he also earns several thousand US $ each month from his YouTube videos on national, regional, and international issues and is watched millions of times each week. Khan has no time to talk to even his friends given his busy tv and YouTube schedules.

Mr. Toor has made several videos against Anchor Iman Khan apparently in the hope that putting Imran Khan Riaz’s photo on “Asad Toor Uncensored” and talking sensational nonsense against him will attract more views and thus dollars – but Imran Khan Riaz has never mentioned him.

Making obnoxious personal attacks against men and women in the hope of earning few dollars is what Mr. Toor’s “journalism” stands for. He recently uttered objectionable comments against the wives of another respected TV Anchor. Hope someone tells Stephen Sackur – and his BBC team – all this.

Piers Morgan and British Army

Ms. Gul Bukhari is apparently living somewhere in the UK. But given her habits, spoiled by the leniency and weakness of the Pakistani state, she did not realise that she has blatantly accused a natural person, Imran Khan Riaz, and a state institution, MI, of planning a clandestine intrusion and criminal assault inside a private flat – a serious crime punishable by a jail sentence.

I remember during the Iraq war that was hugely unpopular with the British left, Piers Morgan, respected Editor of Mirror, had to pay a huge price for accusing British army soldiers of pissing on Iraqi prisoners (2004).

Those were probably the days when disgusting photos of Abu Gharib prison were shocking the world. Bad things happen in wars and the “pissing act” by British soldiers was probably happening too, but Morgan’s error was publishing a photo with an army truck that showed the act, and the regiment checked and proved that the truck (with its army no) had not been sent to Iraq.

Morgan was hugely respected in journalistic circles as Britain’s youngest editor, was credited with Daily Mirror’s turnaround but was quickly fired by the publishers under Army and public pressure. It took him years before a job in the US allowed him to resurrect himself.

Episode exposed Pakistan’s Media Ethics and Civil Military Fault-lines 

This episode has exposed Pakistan’s civil-military divide, the media’s unprofessionalism, and the weakness of the governance system. Several prominent media persons and politicians were quick to take strong positions without having the slightest understanding of the chain of events – or without any desire to know.

Within minutes, in the late evening of May 25, several newspapers published accounts, almost identical to each other as if coming from the same source without an independent application of mind, almost all suggesting through innuendos that this was the work of the country’s intelligence agencies. No newspaper mentioned previous cases of defamation against him from Rauf Klasra or that a woman journalist had filed a complaint of harassment and intimidation against him – and that it was to be decided when this assault happened changing the dynamics.

One English newspaper, supposedly the largest and most respected in the country, took a strong moral position but did not even know if the event took place in F-10 or F-11 sector of Islamabad and reported that it was a scuffle outside Toor’s apartment complex.

While many unknown characters kept talking nonsense and spewing hatred against the country’s institutions on Twitter it was especially disheartening to see some senior journalists exhibiting biliary reactions and making objectionable personal commentaries without any sense of responsibility. Emotion rather than reason and logic have been hallmarks of Pakistani media anyway.

The print media concept that reporters will break stories with solid sources, saved on their pocket notebooks, was trashed by tv journalism where Anchors were under pressure of ratings to break their own news in live brodcasts. The old fashioned concept that current affairs programs will discuss and dissect the known and published news was long dead.

With the arrival of social media, whatever supervision or safeguards existed due to several layers inside a media organization have disappeared. Now anyone with a Facebook wall, Twitter handle, YouTube, or Instagram account is a journalist or “opinionated citizen”.

In established western states laws of libel, slander and defamation were strong and they have quickly adjusted to this new reality. Pakistani laws and their implementation were notoriously weak. The fact that many Pakistani businessmen successfully sued Pakistani media organisations and persons inside the UK where Ofcom and British courts fined heavy penalties to channels on offending content proves this point.

Checks in Pakistan were never legal, these were structural inside old media. The rise of cyberspace has further eroded whatever checks existed in Pakistan because of the multi-layered traditional media organization. This episode has further exposed these weaknesses and the world of chaos that awaits Pakistan.

In the recent episode, the only thing that united these diverse characters from media, politics, embassies and the NGOs on one platform was the assumption that Toor has been beaten by intelligence agencies -and that needs to be condemned.

It never bothered anyone that there was not the slightest of evidence, logic, or context to his allegations. What is the sum effect of all this unprofessionalism? It has further consolidated the view that one can get away with any irresponsible act if he plays the “journalist vs state” card. And that if you play it smartly you can get instantaneous international recognition and support and spread chaos in the country.

What most in media have not realised that the bizarre display of irresponsibility has further weakened the media’s prestige and moral authority for most of Pakistani citizens. No amount of shrill shouting by few journalists will now stop state authorities from bringing more detailed laws to regulate cyberspace. And sooner or later when state authorities push for more regulation, most citizens, bureaucracy, parents of young daughters, working women, and many journalists will now end up supporting such laws.

Premier Zhou Enlai: Modern China’s founding leader was a Great Friend of Pakistan

Zhou Enlai was the first Premier of the People’s Republic of China. This foreign policy wizard and one of the sharpest strategic minds of the 20th century was a great friend of Pakistan, so relations between the two countries moved from strength to strength during his time.

Pakistanis, who were adults in the 1960-70s, fondly remembered him as Chou Enlai, who first visited Pakistan in 1956. He is still known by older generations of Pakistanis by his transliterated name – Chou Enlai.

He befriended Pakistani leader Zulfikar Ali Bhutto (Foreign Minister, President, and PM), which endeared Zhou Enlai to generations of Pakistanis who remember him as one of the founding members of Communist China and a great revolutionary.

However, he was much more than that. Zhou Enlai remained an important member of the Chinese Communist Party from 1920 till his death in 1976. From October 1949 until his death in January 1976, Zhou was first China’s foreign minister and then it’s head of the government.

He served along with Chairman Mao Zedong and played a crucial role in stabilizing the Chinese economy and its strategic relations with neighbors and with the West. As a diplomat, Zhou served as the Chinese foreign minister from 1949 to 1958.

His earlier experiences of being a student in Japan and Europe and then serving the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) across Paris and Berlin (1919-22) were of great help to him in understanding the evolving global order.

Zhou Enlai and Chen Yi arrive in Lahore in 1964

Advocating peaceful coexistence with the West after the Korean War, he participated in the 1954 Geneva Conference and the 1955 Bandung Conference and helped orchestrate Richard Nixon’s 1972 visit to China.

From historical documents released since then and the writings of Dr. Henry Kissinger, we all know that Pakistani leaders – Zulfikar Ali Bhutto and Yahyah Khan – had played a crucial role in this Sino-American opening that changed the then global balance.

Zhou Enlai was the main force that helped devise policies regarding disputes with the United States, Taiwan, the Soviet Union (after 1960), India, and Vietnam. One may digress a bit to remind readers that Indian and western publications and research articles of 1960’s mocked Pakistani leaders for pretending as global balancers.

One such report, “China Report – Sino Pakistani Relations” published in 1965, still available at Sage Publications (Vol.1, Issue 4, July 1, 1965), makes fun of Pakistani President Ayub Khan for creating impressions that by befriending China, one of his goals is to bring China and the US close. And that Ayub Khan was trying to be a Pandit Nehru.

But while the world suspected Pakistani ambitions, Pakistanis did succeed in bringing China and the United States close. Zhou survived the turbulence of the Cultural Revolution, and while Mao dedicated most of his later years to political struggle and ideological work, Zhou was one of the main driving forces behind the affairs of state during much of the Cultural Revolution and is sometimes described as a figurehead of stability between 1949 and 1976.

Geneva Conference & Bandung

In April 1954, Zhou traveled to Switzerland to attend the Geneva Conference, convened to settle the ongoing Franco- Vietnamese War commonly referred to as the “Vietnam  War” His shrewdness and his patience in view of arrogance displayed by US Secretary of State, Foster Douglas – who at one point had refused to shake hands with him – was credited with assisting the major powers involved (the Soviets, French, Americans, and North Vietnamese) to iron out the agreement ending the war.

According to the negotiated peace, French Indochina was to be partitioned into Laos, Cambodia, North Vietnam, and South Vietnam. Elections were agreed to be called within two years to create a coalition government in a united Vietnam, and the Vietminh agreed to end their guerrilla activities in South Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia.

Decades earlier, at Nankai Middle School, a young Zhou Enlai was known for his theatrical performances; many had thought that he would end up becoming an actor. With his performance at the Geneva stage, Zhou Enlai had finally emerged as a Chinese leader on the world stage.

Bandung: The Asian–African Conference

Bandung, in 1955, was perhaps Zhou Enlai’s finest moment. He was a prominent participant in the Asian–African Conference held in Indonesia.

This conference in Bandung was a meeting of twenty-nine African and Asian states, organized by Indonesia, Burma (Myanmar), Pakistan, Ceylon (Sri Lanka), and India, and was called largely to promote Afro-Asian economic and cultural cooperation and to oppose colonialism or neo-colonialism by either the United States or the Soviet Union in the Cold War.

At this conference, an important milestone of the changing post-colonial world, Zhou Enlai skillfully built a neutral stance that made the United States appear as a serious threat to the peace and stability of the region.

Zhou complained that, while China was working towards “world peace and the progress of mankind”, “aggressive circles” within the United States were actively aiding the Nationalists in Taiwan and planning to rearm the Japanese.

He was widely quoted for his remark that “the population of Asia will never forget that the first atom bomb was exploded on Asian soil.” With the support of its most prestigious participants, the conference produced a strong declaration in favor of peace, the abolition of nuclear arms, general arms reduction, and the principle of universal representation at the United Nations.

PM Zhou Enlai first visited Pakistan in January 1956 after a visit by Pakistani premier, Suhrawardy. In February 1964, Premier Zhou Enlai visited Pakistan for the second time, and in December, Pakistani President Ayub Khan visited China.

This tour of Zhou Enlai helped to further strengthen the Pak-China relations, various issues were thrashed, and new agreements of cooperation were signed, including the border demarcations between Pakistan and China.

It became obvious that China will not fight a war against the United States. Though since then, several Chinese leaders have visited Pakistan, for some reason, the name Zhou Enlai has fixed itself in Pakistani memories.

By the end of his lifetime, Zhou was widely viewed as representing moderation and justice in Chinese popular culture. Since his death, Zhou Enlai has been regarded as a skilled negotiator, a master of policy implementation, a devoted revolutionary, and a pragmatic statesman with an unusual attentiveness to detail and nuance.

He was also known for his tireless and dedicated work ethic and his unusual charm and poise in public. He was reputedly the last Mandarin bureaucrat in the Confucian tradition.

Modi could have visited Pakistan in October 2021

India and Pakistan were engaged through backchannel for more than a year. Focus of discussion remained normalization in Kashmir and its change of status back from the union territory towards a state with guarantees against feared demographic change. Successful process between two South Asian countries could have led to Indian PM Narendra Modi visiting Pakistan for the SAARC summit in October 2021. Highly placed sources in Islamabad told this scribe.

India wanted to initiate dialogue on Kashmir, this much was admitted by Pakistan’s young NSA, Dr. Moeed Yousaf, while talking to prominent Indian anchor Karan Thapar almost five months ago. Later in the past few weeks, several things happened in quick succession: India and Pakistan DGMOs renewing the 2003 ceasefire, India letting Pakistan use its air space when PM Imran Khan traveled to Sri Lanka, comments of Pakistan’s Army Chief, Gen. Qamar Javaid Bajwa, (bury the past, and conducive atmosphere in occupied Jammu & Kashmir) during the Islamabad Dialogue followed by tweet of Indian PM Narendra Modi on PM Khan’s illness and later PM Modi’s letter wishing well to Pakistani people on Pakistan’s Day, on 23rd March. PM Imran Khan positively responded to Indian PM on 29th March and insisted that talks on all issues particularly Jammu and Kashmir are needed. Till that point, all looked good.

However, the bonhomie train of these developments was suddenly disrupted when Hammad Azar, new finance minister, declared, unexpectedly, that Pakistan has decided to import sugar and cotton from India. Political reaction from opposition led by Ahsan Iqbal of PMLN and media channels created a new situation and cabinet of PM Imran Khan quickly deferred the resumption of trade.

Does that mean that the process is dead? No, the process of back-channel engagement is very much alive, will continue and the ball is in India’s court, the onus of moving forward lies with India that has to take steps to restore the statehood of occupied Jammu & Kashmir and has to create an “enabling environment” – highly placed sources in Islamabad insist.

This is the first time that Pakistani government sources, in Islamabad, have confirmed the existence of back-channel engagement with the Modi government in Delhi. Till this point, all information, piece by piece, was flowing from the Indian media citing Indian sources. Now Pakistani sources insist that back-channel communications always exist, and both sides were engaged in a robust process from the early part of 2020 with the help of third countries.

From the Indian side Ajit Doval, NSA led the discussions with highly placed officials within Pakistan. UAE had been mentioned earlier in media space, but sources assert that Britain too had been playing a positive role in furthering trust between the two warring states of India and Pakistan.

There is no sell-out on Kashmir, sources insist. Far from that India has hinted at making moves on Kashmir issue. Pakistani side has consistently kept the focus on Kashmir from the very beginning of engagement in early 2020; it demanded a normalization of life and activity in occupied Jammu and Kashmir, restoration of the statehood to Jammu and Kashmir with guarantees that no demographic change will be permitted in the disputed territories. Pakistan expects political autonomy to the Kashmiri people, full restoration of communication links, rights of travel for Kashmiris to AJK and Pakistan on permit and it wants India to extend guarantees on waters from Kashmir.

A successful step-by-step process would have ultimately led to the visit of PM Narendra Modi to attend SAARC summit in Pakistan in October/November of 2021. Trade resumption between countries would have been announced at that stage. What then led to the early declaration by Hammad Azhar and the cabinet’s reaction is not clear. Sources admit that Hammad Azhar’s declaration was untimely without the development of a conducive political preparation and came as a shocker to the political parties and the media.

However, Hammad Azhar was not speaking in a vacuum. Will Modi’s visit now transpire this year is not also clear. However, sources insist that back-channel engagement will continue with additional Confidence Building Measures (CBMs) between both countries and Pakistan welcomes the positive steps taken by India so far, for instance honoring the “2003 Ceasefire” initiative by Pakistan.

A credible Indian source has earlier informed this scribe that continuing use of heavy fire on LOC in Kashmir sector had a huge cost for both countries and in 2020 alone India spent around Rs. INR, 14,000 crore (around US $2 billion), and Pakistan also spent around 60% of that in its retaliations. These figures if true meant that Pakistan spent around US $1.2 billion in the use of live ammunition in one year.

While costs are high for both sides, it’s clear that Pakistan’s troubled economy seeking politically difficult bailout from IMF cannot afford these continuing expenditures. Though Indian source did not claim but it looks apparent that Modi government is following the strategy of increasing economic burdens against the adversary. Regan administration had adopted this successfully against the erstwhile Soviet Union in 1980’s.

Political analysts in Pakistan may wonder what concessions the Modi government can extend to Pakistan in Kashmir. No one expects that Modi can now reverse the abrogation of Art. 370 or can bring back 35-A. News from Indian occupied territories however hint that at some stage, Delhi may restore the status of a “state” to the “union territories” of Jammu and Kashmir and claim that as a political concession to the people of Kashmir.

Some sort of delimitation may also take place in Jammu increasing the electoral share of Hindu-dominated Jammu in the newly created state of Jammu and Kashmir making it possible for BJP to form government in the newly created state. Guarantees against demographic change can be provided by giving a version of Art. 371 to Jammu & Kashmir. Art. 371 is similar to the erstwhile Art. 370 of the Indian constitution and many states formally part of India in its north and northeast enjoy such status. Will these steps then constitute the “conducive atmosphere” or the “enabling conditions” Pakistan seeks remain far from clear.

Congress had once maintained that India and Pakistan should defer a decision on Kashmir and improve their overall relations through trade and investments. Seeds of that thinking were adequately present in the “Musharraf’s Four Point Formula”. If that process had not been abandoned or lost traction after 2007/8 then a far more realistic solution could have emerged in South Asia where India and Pakistan would have moved closer without bringing a change in the overall political architecture of the disputed state.

Another opportunity was lost when in the early part of 2014, Nawaz Sharif government was about to grant MFN status to Congress ruled India but then stopped when a mysterious messenger, a NRI representation of Narendra Modi, from New York arrived demanding that decision be deferred till BJP forms government after the elections. Had that trade agreement taken place perhaps even the BJP government would have found it difficult to abrogate it unilaterally.

Under both scenarios Delhi would have continued insisting that Kashmir is “India’s Atoot Atang” and Pakistan would have reminded India and the world that Jammu and Kashmir need resolution as per the UN Security Council resolutions. Both scenarios offered a better future to Kashmiris. What follows from now – after the Aug 5th radical decisions by the Modi government – is not clear and needs more debate and analysis across both countries. But India and Pakistan are engaged in back-channel dialogue, are not firing across LOC, and are contemplating CBMs towards resumption of trade is a positive development, nevertheless.

Pakistani Senate Elections: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly?

PM Imran Khan and ruling PTI are trying to establish the principle that senate elections – due in March – should be held through an open transparent ballot; instead of the secret vote as mandated by the constitution. This now represents the latest chapter in the never-ending tug of war between the government and its myriad opposition – and becomes important because the PDM movement, on the streets, appears to have stalled bringing all political focus back into the parliament.

In December, the government had moved a reference in the Supreme Court of Pakistan seeking the apex body’s advice on the issue. The court started hearing the reference in the first week of January 2021, and sought replies and opinions from a wide body of stakeholders including all political parties, provincial governments and state institutions like the Election Commission of Pakistan.

In the last week of January, the Khan government suddenly announced that it will now introduce a bill in the parliament seeking a constitutional amendment to provide for an open transparent ballot. Apparently, the government fears that the supreme court will not grant its request and will advise the matter to be decided in the parliament – as the opposition parties had been arguing from the very beginning.

However, PTI members keep reminding the PML-N and PPP leaders on tv shows that both these parties (PPP and PML-N) had themselves agreed, in the famous “Charter of Democracy” in 2006, that Senate elections should be through open ballot – but in the ten years of PPP and PML-N rule (2008-2018), they never introduced a bill in the parliament to give this commitment an effect.

Why the Pakistani political system ended up with a senate as an upper chamber of a bicameral parliament is not clear. This was certainly not on the minds of its earlier political thinkers be it civil dictators or the military interventionists. When the Second Constituent Assembly, convened in May 1955, framed and passed the first constitution of Pakistan in February 1956, it provided for a parliamentary form of government with a unicameral legislature – unlike India where Nehru and Ambedkar’s first constitution established Rajya Sabha as the upper chamber of a bicameral parliament in 1952.

pakistani senate elections

After the 1958 martial law, Gen. Ayub Khan government appointed a Constitution Commission in February 1960 which framed the 1962 Constitution. This 1962 Constitution provided for a presidential form of government again with a unicameral legislature. The 1962 Constitution was abrogated on 25 March 1969. The Civil government, which came to power in December 1971 pursuant to 1970 elections, under the leadership of PPP founder, ZA Bhutto first gave the nation an interim Constitution in the year 1972.

The 1970 Assembly framed the 1973 Constitution which was unanimously passed on 12 April and promulgated on 14 August 1973. This 1973 Constitution that has often been referred to as Bhutto’s great achievement in Pakistani politics, again provided for a parliamentary form of Government – but this time with a bicameral legislature, comprising of the National Assembly and the Senate.

In the new scheme of things the Senate – also compared with the House of Lords in the UK – was given a permanent character; unlike the National Assembly of Pakistan that can be dissolved on the advice of the Prime Minister, Senate – as per Pakistan’s constitution – cannot be dissolved. Bhutto may have thought this as a bulwark against possible military interventions – history soon proved him wrong.

But this perhaps explains Senate’s mystique in Pakistani politics and in media discussions where it is often referred to as a “permanent structure”. However, this “permanence theory” was severely tested in July 1977 when Gen. Zia overthrew Bhutto’s second government; both National Assembly and Senate were sent packing. On 24 December 1981, under Presidential Order (P.O.15 of 1981), a Federal Council (Majlis-e-Shoora) was constituted by the president. Its members were nominated by the president.

The first session of this Council was held on 11 January 1982. This so-called “Federal Council” of Gen. Zia became the precursor of Senate after the 1985 party-less elections. The constitutional romanticism of “Senate being a continuous structure” was perhaps given credence by Gen. Musharraf who – after the Oct 1999 coup against second Nawaz government – did not abolish the Senate.

The membership of the Senate also kept changing. It was originally 45, was raised to 63 in 1977 and to 87 in 1985. The government of Gen. Pervez Musharraf raised the membership of the Senate from 87 to 100 through the Legal Framework Order (LFO), 2002, enforced on 21 August 2002 and the government of Asif Ali Zardari raised the membership of the Senate from 100 to 104 through the 18th amendment in 2011 (four minority members from four provinces).

After the Twenty-Fifth Amendment, the number of seats in the Senate was reduced to 96, as the seats for FATA were removed after its merger with KPK. The fundamental sense of Senate being an upper chamber where all provinces – irrespective of their population size – have an equal representation stays. This is often compared to the US political system where even the largest states like New York and California, have only two senators like Idaho or Kentucky. But similarities end here because, in the US, senators are often hugely popular figures of their communities and are directly elected by the people (since the early 20th century).

In Pakistan, an electoral college that consists of the combined numbers of the National Assembly and the provincial assemblies elects senators indirectly. And this is where the problem lies. Since smaller provinces like Baluchistan and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa have equal representation in the Senate, the votes cast by the MPAs from these provinces become disproportionately important or perhaps crucial in the process. Vote trading may have gradually started in the early 1990s, but by 2008 it had assumed the form of an open market – where MPAs sell votes like shares in a stock exchange.

Imran Khan: Politics of “High Moral Principles”?

In April 2018, Imran Khan, then an opposition leader, expelled almost 20 MPAs of his provincial party (PTI) that ruled Khyber Pakhtunkhwa – after an enquiry that allegedly revealed that these 20 MPAs had voted, in the Senate elections of March 2018, against party’s directions. PTI had not obtained as many senate seats as were expected on the strength of its numbers in the provincial assembly and it was assumed – on good reasoning – that the dissenting MPAs had betrayed the party after selling their votes.

Pakistani Senate elections

It is believed that buyers were PPP of Asif Ali Zardari and the payments were made through a business tycoon who faithfully kept video recordings of these clandestine cash transactions for later use. Khan’s decision was smart. General elections were to be held in July of 2018 – and interim set up was expected in May. PTI scored a huge moral victory, established a principle without much of a risk. But a moral principle was nevertheless established that vote for the senate – held in secret as per the constitution – should be open and transparent, perhaps through a show of hands.

It was in this background that the Attorney General of Pakistan, Khalid Jawed Khan, had on Dec 23, 2020, moved the 11-page reference under Article 186 of the Constitution relating to the advisory jurisdiction of the Supreme Court – on the question of “open vote”.

The president had sought the court’s advice on whether the condition of the secret ballot under Article 226 of the Constitution applied to the Senate elections. This reference was filed soon after the cabinet’s decision to hold the elections for 52 senate seats that will fall vacant, following the retirement of some senators from the 104-member upper house of parliament on March 11, 2021.

The cabinet had on Dec 15 decided to hold the Senate elections in February and invoke advisory jurisdiction of the Supreme Court on open voting. A five-member bench headed by Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP) Gulzar Ahmed also issued notices to the speakers of all provincial assemblies, speaker of the National Assembly, Chairman Senate, and the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP).

The government reference had argued that the condition of secret balloting referred to in Article 226 of the Constitution of 1973 is applicable only to the elections to the office of president, speaker and deputy speaker of the National Assembly, chairman and deputy chairman of the Senate, speakers and deputy speakers of the provincial assemblies and not to the elections for the members of the Senate held under the Elections Act 2017.

The presidential reference, on the advice of PM Imran Khan, had argued that the legislature could provide for an open ballot for the Senate elections by substituting the word ‘secret’ with ‘open’ in Section 122(6) of the Elections Act. The argument was that it will discourage floor crossing and the use of laundered money for vote-buying in elections that grossly insult the mandate of people. And that the Supreme Court of Pakistan can adopt the interpretation which advances greater public welfare and good.

The reference had emphasised that the requirement of a secret ballot for the Senate elections was not by way of a constitutional mandate, rather only by way of statutory provisions namely Section 122(6) of the Elections Act, which may be amended by an act of parliament or through an ordinance promulgated under Article 89 of the Constitution.

The open ballot will help acknowledge the respect for the choice and desire of the citizen voters, strengthen political parties as well as their discipline, which is essential for parliamentary democracy, the government had argued. Most legal analysts had suspected as early as December that court being a conservative institution will find it difficult to grant the wish.

Now when the government has decided to introduce a bill seeking constitutional amendment through the parliament it is obvious that the move in the court is not succeeding – the debate will thus continue through the month of February. How will the PTI government – that lacks the two-third majority in the national assembly – succeed in bringing a constitutional amendment remains to be seen.