Although a Taliban spokesman has denied that his group had anything to do with the disfigurement of Bibi Aisha, her mutilated face on the cover of Time magazine is nevertheless a reminder of what these people stand for.

Aisha had her nose chopped off by her husband — allegedly with Taliban approval — when she tried to escape the man her parents had handed her over to in a forced marriage.

Just to put the Taliban denial in context, we heard recently that Bibi Sanubar, a pregnant woman, was flogged 200 times before being killed with three shots fired into her head at close range. This barbaric incident took place in Qadis district in the remote north-west Afghan province of Badghis, an area almost completely controlled by the Taliban.

Mullah Daoud, a Taliban commander, was one of the three men who condemned the woman and supervised the savage punishment. Her crime? Years after her husband’s death, she had become pregnant after having an affair. The man has gone unpunished, as so often happens in such cases. Far from denying Taliban involvement, Mullah Daoud told the media that Bibi Sanubar had been flogged and then executed in public to serve as an example.

While such cruel acts were routine when the Taliban ruled much of their country, the present government is hardly more enlightened. The governor of the province is reported as saying that while the woman would have been tried for her ‘crime’, she would still have faced appropriate punishment if the evidence against her had been conclusive.

Whenever I have written against the imposition of tribal customs in the modern era, I have been fiercely attacked by some readers as opposing what they term as ‘Islamic’ punishments. The reality is that almost invariably, it is women who bear the brunt of these archaic penalties. It seems they are the sole repositories of male ‘honour’. While honour killings of women are common in Muslim communities, we seldom hear of men committing suicide because they have been dishonoured by faithless or disobedient wives, daughters or sisters.

One problem is that not enough Muslims raise their voices in protest against this brutal treatment of women. When western critics express their anger against such violence, there is a tendency to close ranks and dismiss this criticism as somehow Islamophobic. To give readers a flavour of the reaction to the brutal flogging and murder of Bibi Sanubar, here’s I. Steele blogging on the online news magazine The First Post: “I hope those who did this never sleep again!”

I doubt if Mullah Daoud and his ilk will lose any sleep over the agony he inflicted on Bibi Sanubar. On the contrary, he probably enjoyed a good night’s rest, comforted by the thought that he had carried out God’s will.

Ian Robertson blogs: “The thinking which leads to this kind of behaviour is part of the culture of much of the Islamic world.… whether Nato pulls out of Afghanistan tomorrow or 10 years from now, the barbaric punishments will continue in sophisticated [!] Saudi Arabia, corrupt Pakistan and backward Afghanistan.”

These are only a couple of comments posted on one of dozens of the websites that reported Bibi Sanubar’s execution. While most civilised societies have abolished the death penalty, few Muslim countries have followed suit. There is a widespread sentiment that harsh punishments involving physical pain somehow serve as salutary examples.

However, judging from the Saudi experience, this has not happened. For centuries, criminals have had their heads, hands and feet chopped off in public after Friday prayers. Iran has had people stoned to death, flogged and hanged. In Pakistan, Gen Zia used to have political opponents flogged. None of these punishments had the desired effect. Crime and political dissent have continued unabated.

While I make no claim to Islamic scholarship, surely there is a strong case for ijtihad, or interpretation of the law in the light of changed circumstances, as laid down in the Holy Quran. Even though Ghazali closed the gates of ijtihad nearly 1,000 years ago, I am sure there are Muslim scholars who are competent to review the punishments laid down hundreds of years ago. Fiqh-i-Jafria (Shia faith) permits this eminently sensible concept to be put into practice, but followers of a couple of fiqhs of Ahle Sunnat have been frozen in the 12th century, at least in juridical terms. Indeed, many historians of Islam ascribe the Muslim world’s decline to the end of ijtihad.

This is not to suggest that Shias are much more progressive, judging from the words and actions of the ayatollahs of Iran. Every now and then, horror stories emerge from the Islamic Republic to remind us of what the people of that ancient land are going through.

When Sakineh Mohammadi Ashtiani was sentenced to be stoned to death for alleged adultery, her case attracted worldwide protests. Although the government has backed down and announced that she will not now be killed in that gruesome manner, her execution is still imminent.

On another note (no pun intended), Ayatollah Khamenei is reported as having recently denounced music on the grounds of frivolity. While conceding that in Islam, music was halal, or kosher, Iran’s supreme leader went on to say: “… promoting it and teaching it is not compatible with the highest values of the sacred regime of the Islamic Republic … It’s better that our dear youth spend their valuable time in learning science and essential and useful skills and fill their time with sport and healthy recreations instead of music.”

I doubt very much if the ayatollah’s words will cause Iran’s ‘dear youth’ to burn their CDs and scrap their iPods any time soon. Iran has a long and rich musical tradition, and for its leader to make such an eccentric pronouncement reveals yet again the wide gulf that now exists between the religious rulers of the country and its oppressed people. Even Zia at his most deluded was unable to stop Pakistanis from enjoying music.

Over the last two decades, anti-culture and inhuman currents have gained strength across much of the Muslim world. More and more, we have moved away from the liberal and tolerant mainstream. As extremists have set the agenda, the vast majority of Muslims have looked on in mute horror at what their faith has been transformed into. Surely it’s high time to reclaim it from the Taliban and the ayatollahs.

When televangelist Aamir Liaquat Hussain travelled to Saudi Arabia to perform hajj last year, rational Pakistanis let out a sigh of relief. The more mischievous among us even prayed to the Almighty to let the Saudis fall in love with this eminent ‘Islamic scholar’ and fund his outlandish theories, leaving television viewers ever so grateful for keeping him there.

But, alas, he is set to make a comeback. This time he would be seen on a different channel. Of course, just like his record as a religious talk-show host didn’t seem to bother his old employers, one shouldn’t expect any miracles in this respect from his new bosses either.

Apart from being accused of having a questionable degree, he was also accused by his old party, the MQM, and a number of columnists of instigating violence against the Ahmadi community through his show. Many also castigated him for holding some truly audacious views about Islam, society and politics.

Though he was summarily dismissed by the MQM, he gloatingly hung on to his celebrity status at the TV channel which saw nothing wrong in a host who discussed on air the merits of proclaiming members of a minority sect as wajibul qatal (punishable by death).

He passionately blamed the defeats faced by Pakistan’s cricket team on the green-coloured soles of their shoes! “Green is the colour of Islam”, said the wise man. “How can they have it underneath their shoes?’

As is apparent by the ways of some leading news channels — from their audacious pro-militants coverage of the Lal Masjid episode to the amoral and insensitive way they covered the recent Air Blue crash — people like Mr Hussain have proved to be great attractions not only for the channels but many multinationals as well, which advertise their brands during the most foolhardy of shows. Thus, one can understand the channels’ unflinching obsession with such characters.

Pakistani society is going through a gradual breakdown. A number of us are lashing out, hoping to find all kinds of enemies to attack for our misfortunes. India, Israel, the US, the UK, Ahamdis, Hindus, Christians, Barelvi, Shias… President Zardari, anyone or everyone but our own individual acts and morals.

It is an act of selective nihilism in which most Pakistanis refuse to trust or listen to state institutions and the government; but then let this hard mixture of cynicism and defiance melt away when engaged by clever, media-savvy chameleons.

The latter make a name and a game out of giving vent to all the repressed strains of religious bigotry, political hatred and delusions of grandeur now brewing in the collective psyche of middle-class Pakistan. It reminds one of the damaged and hurt Germany on the eve of Hitler’s take-over.

A country ravaged by economic downturns, violence and low self-esteem, and looking for ‘enemies’ (Jews, communists, gypsies, blacks) to pin the blame on. This attitude became fascist Germany’s rallying cry for regeneration, but ended up in its own destruction.

We already have the army fighting a battle with armed fanatics. But what about a lot of those working in offices and studying in schools and colleges? These are ‘educated’ folks who may not be armed or look like the Taliban, but many have views close to what the fanatics advocate.

These are the people who would exhibit more disgust at the sight of a politician than they would at the sight of blown up bodies of innocent men, women and children; people who would scream vengeance at the plight of Dr Afia Siddiqui but look the other way when a woman is gang raped in their own Islamic republic; people who would bribe a cop to avoid a traffic violation ticket and yet find themselves above corruption.

The ‘educated’ today require an education based on facts and truth instead of what they were taught at school as ‘history’ and ‘ethics.’

An education that highlights the importance of tolerance, plurality and democracy instead of the kind of education most of us continue to be given at schools and by the media, which is based on arrogance and paranoia against imagined enemies.

Promotion of economic welfare of people is an important objective which underpins liberal democracy. To be truly representative, democracy then has to be strengthened by holding periodically scheduled national elections in the country. The entire edifice is built as an expression of a modern state, a defined territory with the nation committed to progress and to participation of its citizens in this process.

Pakistan has not been very lucky in fulfilling this objective. Elections, for example, have been held several times during the last six decades to arbitrate, at least theoretically, divergent views and positions about striving for the goal, resulting in creating more divergence among the main political players.

In March 1954, elections were held in East Pakistan which set the stage for a denouement which was beyond expectation. The dispute about the place of Bengali as the official language of East Pakistan unleashed events which ultimately affected the framework and the nature of the state of Pakistan itself. In that election, the United Front of opposition parties routed the official Muslim League and turned it into an insignificant minority party in the province.

This situation set in motions some important developments which were obviously ignored by the leaders in West Pakistan. The final outcome of the fallout from the 1954 elections became clear with the 1970 elections when Awami League won 170 out of 172 seats for East Pakistan in the national assembly, with PPP gaining 81 seats in West Pakistan. According to the parliamentary convention, Awami League should have formed the government at the centre, which did not happen. The rest of the story, leading up to the break up of Pakistan is familiar to all informed readers and need not be repeated here.

The third fateful election took place in 1977 when Z.A. Bhutto was accused of massive rigging at the polls, resulting in long negotiations with the Pakistan National Alliance, being the alliance of various opposition parties, resulting in an agreement only to be thwarted by the military coup of General Ziaul Haq.

The fourth critical election took place in 1997 when PML-N won with a heavy mandate, as it became known in hindsight. As a result, powers of President Farooq Leghari were clipped, the NAB was let loose, Supreme Court building was attacked, and the Shariat Bill was pushed through the assembly, declaring Pakistan a truly Islamic state. The events around this mandate were still unfolding when General Musharraf declared his military coup and took over as supreme commander and then later as president of the country as well.

This brief survey seems to indicate as if Pakistan was established on some very unstable fault lines which were set in motion with each of these elections. This is a difficult question to answer. We need to note, however, that we are currently coping with the results of the 2008 general elections, which gave a majority of seats to the PPP and it has formed its government in alliance with some other political parties. After the passage of almost eighteen months since the elections, the PPP-led alliance is weak but holding on to power, and the main opposition is not in an ‘explosion’ mode, to upset the applecart. Mr Asif Zardari, president and co-chairman of the party is in a spot for various charges of misdemeanour.

The founder of Pakistan, Mohammad Ali Jinnah, had argued that because Muslims were a nation, therefore they were justified to have a territory to promote their identity. In the areas of British India where they were in a majority they should establish their own autonomous political system. Underlining this claim was the assumption that in a united India after the departure of the British Muslims would be at the mercy of the Hindu majority. Autonomy was then associated with the opportunity to improve the welfare of the people of Pakistan and allow them to lead their lives according to the principles of their religion. At times, Jinnah used terms as Islamic welfare state, or welfare state based on principles of Islam, but did but not dilate on these phrases.

Jinnah also did not expound what he meant by Muslims being a nation, even though part of this nation was to be left behind in India after the partition. And then the independence of Bangladesh gave a further blow to the concept.

A culturally or religiously homogeneous community’s claim to be a nation and as a nation to have a territory is not new, however. For guidance on this matter we need to refer to the modern European history where during the period from mid-nineteenth to mid-twentieth century this idea had received considerable attention, leading up to the declaration by the US President, Woodrow Wilson, affirming the right of self-determination for communities. Jinnah had a long sojourn in Europe during the thirties and he must have noticed the debates going on this issue.

Eric Hobsbawm, a well-known European historian, holds the view that a nation was not a spontaneous growth but an artefact. It had actually to be constructed. Extending this argument in the context of Pakistan, we need to invoke the concept of nation-state to accomplish this task. And drawing on European experience, liberal democracy can play an effective role in promoting progress and in allowing the people to participate in this progress.

The potential for this scenario exists, provided this time NRO does not become the new fault line to destabilise the country. The state of Pakistan is a legal entity created by the Indian Independence Act 1947. Its identity as a nation can be strengthened in the framework of representative democracy. There are many factors which would have to be taken into consideration in order to facilitate the fulfilment of this objective, and I would briefly focus on two of these factors to illustrate my point, as follows: class structure of the society currently comprising the nation, and the role of universally accessible primary education in preparing the young to become responsible citizens.

Experience of advanced countries clearly indicates that the backbone of representative democracy has been the support of the bourgeoisie. In Pakistan, the preference of the rich is to have the state machinery that governs the least, apart from maintaining law and order and protecting property rights. It is only in that framework that they could maximise their power and perks; in the middle class, there is a vocal minority which would prefer authoritarian rulers emphasising stability and security at the cost of freedom, and they come from various professions including senior bureaucracy, information technology, medical practice, corporate executive, etc.

The horizon of the poor is usually confined to local conditions, to get justice from the wheelers and dealers at the regional and local levels. Politics of the left or of left-leaning agenda as well as trade union activities play from zero to negligible role in the country. These barriers can be overcome through a demonstration effect of a working liberal democracy, if the circumstances would allow it to function.

Concerning primary education, there is strong evidence to show that the social benefits of compulsory and universal primary education far, far exceed their social costs, as compared to higher levels of education. And in terms of the opportunity to inculcate national sense, no other alternative including the madressah can compete with what the free primary education can offer. Then why has Pakistan ignored this opportunity for the last sixty years? A short answer is that the present chaotic system suits the upper classes in the country

According to some well-involved sources a new row between the judiciary and the executive has begun and the issue is the appointment of judges to the superior courts.

The case of filling a large number of vacancies in the Lahore High Court has been hanging fire for quite some time. A serious difference of opinion between the judicial and executive organs of the state has apparently developed on the filling of a fresh vacancy in the Supreme Court.

Judiciary-executive differences have a fairly long history and the stories of the executive’s manipulations against the judiciary, including the way chief justices Yaqub Ali, Sajjad Ali Shah, Saeeduzzaman Siddiqui and Iftikhar Chaudhry were removed, are well-known.

In any country blessed with responsible and upright authorities the constitutional scheme of appointment of the judges of the superior courts should not have presented a serious difficulty, but Pakistan has not been that fortunate. Here the judiciary has had to supplement the constitutional provisions with its own rulings.

The most exhaustive Supreme Court ruling came in the Al-Jehad Trust case in 1996. Some of the court’s conclusions in this case were:

1. The opinion of the chief justice of Pakistan and the chief justice of the high court as to the fitness and suitability of a candidate for judgeship is entitled to be accepted in the absence of very sound reasons to be recorded by the president/executive.

2. Permanent vacancies occurring in the offices of the chief justice and judges should be filled within 30 days except for unforeseen situations when the period may be extended to 90 days.

3. No ad hoc judge can be appointed to the Supreme Court while permanent vacancies exist.

4. The most senior judge of a high court is entitled to be appointed as chief justice except where concrete and valid reasons are recorded by the president/executive.

5. Additional judges of the high courts are entitled to be confirmed, if vacancies exist and if they are recommended by the chief justice of the high court concerned and the chief justice of Pakistan.

6. The political affiliation of a candidate for judgeship may not be a disqualification provided the candidate meets the eligibility test and is appropriately recommended.

7. Any appointment/confirmation of a judge without the mandatory consultation with the consultees identified in the constitution would be invalid.

The implementation of this verdict posed many problems. Differences between the judiciary and the Punjab government were reported in the spring of 1997, though both sides denied this. Later in the same year a far more serious clash between the executive and the judiciary developed when the country’s chief justice recommended the appointment of five Supreme Court judges. The government issued a presidential notification whereby the Supreme Court’s strength was reduced to 12, and thus demolished the case for new appointments. The notification was later withdrawn but while the government insisted that the apex court’s strength was to be fixed by parliament, the Chief Justices Committee called for implementation of the chief justice’s recommendations. This tussle eventually led to a mob attack on the Supreme Court and the deposition of the author of the Al-Jehad judgment himself.

Although the Al-Jehad case judgment has not always been scrupulously followed it is still frequently relied upon. In addition, after the restoration of the judges last year the National Judicial Policymaking Committee laid down a few principles which were later on endorsed at a conference on the new policy’s implementation.

The key recommendations were that judges working on positions lower than their status were to be recalled, that the vacant posts of judges must be filled on an urgent basis so as to discourage ad hocism in judicial appointments, that all selections be made on the basis of competence and integrity, and that candidates for judgeship should not be closely associated with a political party.

It should be possible to resolve the present difference of opinion within the framework evolved over the years. The prime minister also has categorically dispelled the possibility of a clash with the judiciary. However, two questions will pose problems. First, parliament’s right to prescribe the judiciary’s terms and conditions cannot easily be denied. Secondly, what will happen if the judiciary makes exceptions to rules made by itself?

But that is not all. Political parties and other civil society organisations have been making suggestions on the subject for many years. Civil society has been vigorously pleading that the state’s chief justice should be appointed by the president in consultation with both leaders of the house and the opposition in the National Assembly. Strangely enough, nobody is referring to the proposal for the judges’ appointment through a commission contained in the Charter of Democracy. There have also been suggestions that the judges’ appointments should be subject to public hearings. However, in view of the lack of any tradition of a serious, responsible and disciplined discourse this idea cannot be recommended in Pakistan.

There remains a broader question of the judge’s social orientation that can no longer be ignored. The judiciary in most countries belongs to the conservative stock and is seldom found in harmony with the democratic and egalitarian aspirations of the masses, particularly in a developing society. The difficulties the judiciary in Pakistan faces in doing justice to the weaker sections of society — women, non-Muslim citizens and workers — have sometimes been admitted by high judicial authorities themselves. If Pakistan is to be a democratic, welfare state all its organs, the judiciary included, must be geared to the realisation of these objectives.

This debate is not peculiar to Pakistan. The British judiciary took decades to grow out of the shadows of the conservative nobility. When Mr Churchill chose a Tory MP to succeed Sir Maurice McGuire as the chief justice of the federal court of India the outgoing chief justice vehemently protested at the passing over of competent Indians who understood the people better, including Ch. Zafrulla. In the United States the Republican presidents’ bids to pack the supreme court with conservative judges and the Democrats’ efforts to put liberals on the bench have often led to spectacular contests.

This emphasis on the judge’s disposition does not conflict with the principles of competence and integrity. The conservatives and liberals both are supposed to be competent persons of integrity and both can fairly interpret the constitution and the law. It is while interpreting the law that they fall into the locally recognised categories of judges who are inclined always to justify the state’s actions and those that are inclined to give relief to the victims of state’s oppression.

Thus, it is time to start assessing candidates/nominees for judges’ offices not only on the basis of competence and integrity but also on the basis of their record in relation to the rights of the disadvantaged — especially women, minorities, workers and the poor generally. Justice will be better served if those chosen to dispense it are sensitive to the disadvantaged people’s rights to equity and fair play.

Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh’s official visit to the United States should have been the major story in Pakistan’s media. But our right-wing anchors and columnists and “get-Zardari” editors are far more focused on the domestic power struggles to realize that the nightmare of Pakistan’s strategic encirclement may already be on the brink of becoming reality.

The less attention Pakistanis pay to fighting terrorism and figuring out a way of dealing with the world, the more likely it is that India — the country with which Pakistan has fought four wars in 62 years — will continue to gain ground. India already has better relations with the governments of Afghanistan and Iran, our western neighbours. The more we demonstrate hatred towards the United States, the more we contribute to making the India-US relationship into an anti-Pakistan alliance, which need not be. We could complain and get angry with the US, as the Jamaatis and the Ghairat lobby advocate, or we could analyse the rising Indian influence and figure out ways of combating it.

It is interesting to note that in the ongoing Pakistani debate about US-Pakistan ties, India is seldom mentioned. Our jihad sympathizers relate their anti-Americanism to US actions against Muslims around the world, without realistically examining whether shouting slogans for our Arab brothers gains us any advantage in defending Pakistan against India. Pakistan has traditionally sought American help in order to stand up to India. If Pakistani anti-Americanism is not managed in a way that the Americans do not see Pakistanis as enemies, India’s strategic advantage will continue to increase.

The US would become a force-multiplier for India in our region instead of being a potential balancer that keeps India’s anti-Pakistan moves in check. We would be left holding anti-American demonstrations and publishing anti-American diatribes while India will be the beneficiary of US investment, defence deals and civil nuclear deal. Do we really want that to happen? Or is it already too late to stop the very strong ties, which have been built between India and the US? Let us take a look.

In the Bush administration 18 Indian-Americans served in various positions over the course of eight years compared with one Pakistani-American. In the Obama administration 22 Indian-Americans are already serving in senior positions (Assistant Secretary and above) and there is one Governor (out of fifty US states) of Indian descent. Almost 200 Indian-Americans serve as Congressional staffers compared with 12 Pakistani-American, three of whom work for the same Congresswoman. There are numerous State Department and Pentagon officials and at least one the US Ambassador of Indian origin.

More than 100,000 Indian students are enrolled in US universities compared with less than seven thousand Pakistanis. The number of professors of Indian origin in the US is at least one hundred times more than professors from Pakistan-totally disproportionate to the 1 to 7 population ratio.

The Indian Congressional caucus is three times as large as Pakistan’s and even the Chairwoman of the Pakistan caucus in the House of Representatives is simultaneously a member of the India caucus. There is hardly a US media organisation where Indian names are not prominent whereas Pakistani journalists only make their noisy presence felt in our own introverted media and that too only on domestic issues. Any Pakistani who manages to earn respect of the Americans is immediately denigrated as an American agent in Pakistan. The Indians, on the other hand, see their countrymen as spreading Indian influence in America.

Ironically, India was historically never an American ally and did not have the same level of aid (especially military assistance) from the United States, as did Pakistan. So how did India transform itself into a close partner after the cold war and Pakistan manage to become the unhappy semi-ally? The question is relevant today because of what we Pakistanis have become and what we have achieved over the years. Pakistan is America’s oldest ally in the region but Pakistan and the US are more estranged today than they were at any time in history. India was a Soviet ally till 1989 and yet India and the US have strong economic and strategic ties.

The Indians appear to have realised early on that even if they did not have security ties with the US building close ties at other levels was important for the long-term. Pakistan did the reverse. While we were recipients of large amounts of military aid, we did little to build a presence in US academia or media. Our community remains focused on getting attention in Pakistan and few Pakistani-Americans have earned the stature in mainstream American intellectual or political life that could translate into serious influence. Over time, US-based Indian organizations have helped build close cultural and educational ties between the two countries. Bollywood is now penetrating Hollywood while there is little comparable Pakistani ingress.

The India-US nuclear deal is considered a defining moment for the India-US relationship. Let us look at the reactions in India over the Indo-US nuclear deal. The Congress-led government was in favour of the nuclear deal but the Communist parties who were allied to the Congress government at that time did not ideologically support the deal. There was debate and discussion in the Parliament and in the Indian electronic and print media for nine months. In the end when the left parties and BJP decided to vote against the bill, the Congress obtained the support of other smaller parties.

The government secured 275 votes in the 541 member Lok Sabha for the India-US civil nuclear deal and their opponents secured 256 votes. The left parties targeted the government for changing the traditional policy of non-alignment and becoming too close to the United States but it was through discussion and debate, not street demonstrations, rubbishing America in the media or calling influential Indian-Americans as CIA agents.

Also, the political leaders faced fire, not the Indian ambassador in Washington and other officials who were following orders and doing their job. Also during the entire controversy the Indian military did not openly involve itself or say anything about the deal. And throughout the entire period the Indian-American community was very strongly behind the bill, they lobbied hard in the US for the passage of the bill and they lobbied hard back home for the passage of the bill in Parliament.

On the other side let us look at the Kerry-Lugar Bill controversy and the way it played out both in Pakistan and amongst the Pakistani-American community abroad. The strong anti-Americanism in Pakistan led the initially pro-Kerry-Lugar Pakistani American community to become silent. The debate in the Pakistani media was less a debate on Pakistani policy options and more a hate campaign against the US. Politicians attacked their own government; the army spoke out publicly against the Kerry-Lugar-Berman Bill’s contents; and once it became clear that the US Congress would not change its views, the whole thing subsided like foam at home even though offense had unnecessarily been caused to American Congressmen.

Why is it that despite 54 years of close ties with the US Pakistan has not been able to help build a relationship of influence in the US? Our problem is that unfortunately we don’t know how to influence others – we only know how to abuse them. The Quaid dreamt of Pakistan being a global power with influence all over the world. How does one build Pakistan’s global influence?

Pakistan’s ability to change minds of global powers will be a source of Pakistani influence; Not jihadis who will keep getting arrested and keep Pakistan under watchful eye of major powers. And yet over the decades every Pakistani who has tried to build close ties with the US, like Sahibzada Yaqub Khan, Najmuddin Sheikh, Jehangir Karamat, Mahmud Ali Durrani and Husain Haqqani, has been labeled as an American agent rather than being seen as Pakistanis who can better communicate with Americans in Pakistan’s interest.

If India is about to win huge contracts and get heaped with praise during the Manmohan Singh visit to Washington, Pakistanis need to review how we have played our cards wrong for decades. And then, let us work on a plan to change the relationship if for no other reason than to deny our adversary the advantage of being the world’s sole superpower’s sole South Asian partner.

Sadiq Saleem is a businessman and analyst based in Toronto, Canada. E-mail: sadiqsaleemca@gmail.com

Transparency International’s new Annual Corruption Perceptions Report and Pakistan’s position on its index is once again the topic of discussion on all TV channels and most newspaper columns, courtesy right wing anchors and columnists. Instead of focusing on the terrorist threat to the Pakistani way of life, the corruption issue is once again being used to create hatred for the political class and to dislodge or weaken an elected government.

One can sense a replay of the past, as those who know Pakistan’s history of the 1990s would testify. In Pakistan between 1988 and 1999 no elected civilian government was allowed to complete its term because of alleged corruption. The 1999 military coup that brought General Pervez Musharraf to power was also justified on grounds that Pakistan’s generals were better suited to wage the war against corruption.

Transparency’s reports are highlighted only under civilian governments though Pakistan’s rating for corruption changes little on an annual basis and the global perception that Pakistan is rife with corruption is consistent under civil or military rule. Few commentators educate the public on how Transparency International, a small NGO with local affiliates who are not past political prejudice, draws up its index. The average man is led to believe that Transparency International is some kind of a United Nations, which it is not, and its reports are based on measuring corruption, which they are not either. The truth is that Transparency International is a Berlin-based organization that publishes an annual Corruption Perceptions Index based on surveys “from 13 independent institutions” based on “the opinions of business people and country analysts.” So all that Transparency’s reports tell us is what some businessmen perceive and tell the organisation’s surveyors.

The media can first create a perception of corruption, which is reflected in Transparency’s survey and then report on the survey selectively to argue that corruption has gone up or down in the country. What a manipulative process!

Corruption has often been described as the cause for most of the problems of third world countries. During the better part of the 1990s when democracies were being introduced in most of these countries in a post cold war era, corruption was used by the entrenched establishment in several countries to undermine the democratic processes. By the early 21st century however another serious debate emerged in the West when intellectuals started to question the wisdom of taking corruption as the single most important factor in the social, economic and democratic development of a society.

This thread of thought emerged as the researchers and academics realized that the so-called war on corruption, sometime pushed by the World Bank, had started to undermine democracy and often resulted into projecting choices for the people that did not lead to real development.

One such thinker Moises Naim, former Venezuelan Trade Minister and currently Editor of Foreign Policy magazine, wrote in a classic 2005 article that the “worst collateral damage” of a fixation with corruption, “is the political instability it can create. Electorates already have many reasons to be disappointed with their elected officials. The corruption curse feeds people’s unrealistic expectations about what it would take to improve their standard of living and set a country on a more prosperous path. Popular impatience, exacerbated by the belief that nearly all those at the top are lining their pockets, unreasonably shortens the time governments have to produce results.”

Naim also pointed out, “There is no doubt that corruption is a scourge. But there is also no doubt that many countries crippled by corruption are not sinking. Hungary, Italy and Poland are just a few examples of countries where prosperity has coexisted with significant levels of corruption. China, India and Thailand are only not sinking; they are prospering, despite widespread corruption.”

Of course, Naim’s purpose was not to condone corruption. He sought only to point out that the elites and intelligentsias of some countries can ignore more fundamental problems while obsessing about corruption.

In our case, the corruption debate has prevented Pakistanis from identifying terrorism as a threat. Bombs go off and we ignore them but columnists and anchors who consider the Taliban lashing a young woman in Swat as “consistent with Sharia” rant on about fiscal corruption as disastrous.

During the mid-1990s Pakistanis felt dishonored by the revelation that Transparency International had listed Pakistan as the second most corrupt country in the world. Apologists for Pakistan’s establishment used that factoid to run down Pakistan’s politicians and blamed them for bringing Pakistan to this point. Once the establishment had run the politicians down and used corruption as an excuse for increasing its power in a succession of palace coups, discussion over Pakistan’s rating for corruption by Transparency International seldom made news. In most of the Musharraf era, the media rarely gave any importance to the TI index, although Pakistan never performed very well on that benchmark.

Going back to the argument of Moises Naim that corruption does not necessarily mean that the country’s economy is sinking, one may notice that in the year 2004 Transparency International index, Finland was identified as the world’s least corrupt country and the most corrupt countries were Bangladesh and Haiti. Now if we look at Bangladesh’s economic growth in the first few years of the 21st century it is apparent that she has managed to maintain stable growth while Pakistan that had better rating in TI index during these periods had not been able to create a sustainable economic platform.

According to TI, “The index defines corruption as the abuse of public office for private gain, and measures the degree to which corruption is perceived to exist among a country’s public officials and politicians.” The scores on TI’s index range from 10 (squeaky clean) to zero (highly corrupt). TI considers a score of 5.0 as “the borderline figure distinguishing countries that do and do not have a serious corruption problem.”

The methodology for determining the level of corruption in a country is such that the ranking is less important than the rating. A country can be the worst in a certain year, when fewer nations are surveyed, but move up or down in the rankings because of changes in the number of countries surveyed. Pakistan’s rating, on the other hand, has improved little over the years.

It has been pointed out that in Pakistan’s case, corruption is a constant factor, which is exaggerated or downplayed according to the political needs of the country’s bureaucracy and generals. In Pakistan this rating is often used as an excuse to boot out or denigrate the politicians while covering up the corruption and other ethical lapses of other important players of power.

There is no doubt that the honest Pakistanis must carry on their struggle against corruption but anti-corruption crusades must not be allowed to deprive the country of democratic governance and popular participation in government.

During the NRO debate in the country recently many facts were completely ignored by most of the media. While the 1990s were wasted in filing and pursuing corruption cases, no one came up with statistics about how many cases were actually proved in the courts of law? How many cases did not even reach the stage of prosecution and what about those in which the victims (accused) were found not guilty? And why should it not be debated that those who filed false cases on the basis of patently political considerations must be brought to book?

Exploring these angles requires thinking that is not contoured and driven by an agenda. The Transparency International index and allegations of corruption, however, can help some people play their games.

 Sadiq Saleem is a businessman and analyst based in Toronto, Canada. Email:sadiqsaleemca@gmail.com

In repeated opinion poll surveys in Pakistan over the last one year, there has been one thing constant – the rising anti-Americanism in the country. According to the Pew Research Centre, only 16 per cent of Pakistanis surveyed have a favourable view of the United States and 13 per cent have confidence in President Barack Obama.

Though there are many reasons for this anti-Americanism, what we cannot deny is that it has a great deal with how the discourse has been shaped by the views and agendas of our political leaders, media personalities, journalists, academics and security establishment.

Pakistanis as a nation are riled up en masse over the supposed ‘loss of sovereignty’ over the fact that our ally of 55 years decided to give us unconditional economic aid – in addition to conditional military aid – for a change. At $1.5 billion per year the Enhanced Partnership for Pakistan Act 2009 would make Pakistan the single largest recipient of US government development aid in the world – greater than the Israel economic aid package. And while to many media commentators and so-called analysts $1.5 billion in aid does not seem like a large amount as it is 1 per cent of Pakistan’s GDP and for the government would be 10 per cent of its revenue. It would enable the government to increase spending on education and health by 33 per cent (I am grateful for this information to a California-based Pakistani, Mr Nayyer Ali).

Our very ‘honourable’ political leaders and media personalities lecture and harp on a daily basis how this bill is ‘anti-Pakistan’, failing to point out that this is one among the very few pro-Pakistan American legislations as it would help the people of Pakistan! But then for these ‘honourable’ personalities Pakistan means them – and not the people.

Pakistan’s Ghairat lobby responds to those who disagree by labelling them ‘bay-ghairat’, ‘traitor’, ‘American agent’, ‘kafir’, and a dozen more such epithets. It is interesting how supporting good relations with the US makes one an American agent but advocating a break in these relations does not result in any label whatsoever.

Secretary Clinton’s trip to Pakistan too was portrayed in a very particular way – to highlight this ‘anti-Americanism’ and Pakistani ‘anger’. More focus – and more camera time – was given to anti-American speeches, to students ranting and raving on ‘US policy’ and to how ‘this war’ was not Pakistan’s war. Very little attention was paid to the fact that the leading foreign diplomat of the still only superpower in the world spent three days in Pakistan, emphasised how deep the US-Pakistan relationship is and promised even more economic aid for the Pakistani people.

Again the only time attention was paid to Secretary Clinton’s speech was when she expressed ‘surprise’ at how ‘no one’ in the Pakistani establishment had any knowledge about al-Qaeda and other jihadis, elements at one time sponsored by elements of our state. Here too the focus was on how to show this as ‘American perfidy’ rather than what it really was – frank talk between two friends, especially in the light of Secretary Clinton’s earlier admission and apology about American conduct during and after the anti-Soviet Afghan jihad of the 1980s. Maybe our culture believes in hypocrisy and so we think if we refuse to admit something the world will stop asking those questions. But that doesn’t happen. The world will keep asking and keep stating things and if we don’t give answers they will find ways to find those answers themselves.

We also tend to see events as stand alone things that we can ignore because they will have no impact on long-term policy. That is where we are wrong. Events play in to process and process decides policy. Just as it is wrong to mistake the wood for the trees, similarly it is stupid to do the opposite. From 2008 onwards the Americans have tried to build a relationship with Pakistan that goes beyond the traditional security-based relationship and is more multi-dimensional in nature. However, this is their last and final attempt to try to ‘help Pakistan’ reverse what they perceive as a precarious course.

It is interesting that what Hilary Clinton said during her three-day visit to Pakistan in 2009 is not very different from what President Bill Clinton said when he stopped for only five hours in March 2000. Quite clearly the Americans have been as consistent in their view of Pakistan as Pakistanis have been of the Americans. If we are on collision course should we just increase the pitch of our screaming or actually think about how we can avoid that collision?

For decades we were America’s only ally in the region and we believed that ‘the Americans need us more than we need them’ and since they have no other ally in the region they have ‘no option’ but to stand by us through thick and thin. Even that theory was constantly disproved – in 1965, 1971 and 1989. Now, those days are gone. The US-India relationship, which was mainly economic in the 1990s, has now taken on a strong security and defence dimension. India plans on spending $100 billion to modernise and replace its old Soviet equipment and the Americans are there at the top of the line as suppliers. American companies will build two nuclear power reactors in India.

For the last five years on an annual basis the American and Indian armies have held war games called Yudh Abyas (War Exercise). This year’s exercise included 17 American Strykers – the largest deployment outside of Iraq and Afghanistan for the US Pacific Rim forces. Not only the army, but also the navies and air forces of both countries hold joint exercises on an annual basis. This year the Japanese naval forces joined the joint India-US exercise. Even China and India hold military exercises once every two years.

The US has always been open to the idea of help and assistance of regional powers in Afghanistan and Admiral Mullen has openly talked about Indian military assistance. This has never happened because of American reluctance to upset Pakistan. However, if our anti-Americanism continues the day might come when the Americans do not see the value of their Pakistani relationship. I, and anyone else who points this out, is not an American agent but a voice of sanity in an environment of anger and hate.

In a recent article in the influential Foreign Policy magazine titled ‘US-India military cooperation’ Robert Haddick argues that the rapid expansion in the defence relationship between the United States and India contrasts sharply with the troubled security relationships the US has with China and Pakistan. At the end of his article Haddick warns with little seeming to go right with Afghanistan, Pakistan, or China, US policymakers should be pleased with warming US-India defence ties. When pondering Afghanistan, Pakistan, and China, the US-India defence relationship is something both countries will take comfort in – and may someday need.

Many of you who read this piece will shrug your heads and say ‘so what’ and that is what I fear. This complacency about our relationship with the US is going to hurt Pakistan long-term. We are not Vietnam, Iran or China. Vietnam fought a nationalist insurgency, which so thoroughly consumed the country that it took them years just to reach to the level of a developing country. Iran has oil and ancient roots. And China has a 1.2 billion population, the largest military in the world, soon to be the largest economy and a very strong identity. Even then, each one of them is willing to engage with the US cautiously instead of basing their relationship on rhetoric. None of them is as dependent on US aid as Pakistan. It is time that we wake up as a nation, look around and see the reality of the world rather than living in a constructed reality.

 (Sadiq Saleem is a businessman and part-time analyst based in Toronto, Canada.

 Email:sadiqsaleemca@gmail.com)

On Monday, November 2, thirty-five innocent Pakistanis lost their lives to a terrorist attack. These were ordinary people, standing in line at a bank to receive their monthly salary. They must have gone there with plans of spending that money on their parents, wives, children, brothers and sisters. But for the Pakistani media, especially the TV anchors who have now become the arbiters of what is important and what is not, the death of these poor people was not important. With their usual cast of characters from —Jamaat-e-Islami to Imran Khan to the two Muslim Leagues— the electronic media that day was exclusively focused on the so-called NRO issue.

Although the PPP has defused the matter by withdrawing the ordinance from Parliament, there is something artificial about the manner in which the matter of the NRO was made the primary focus of national discussion. The NRO issue took over from debate over the Kerry Lugar Bill, which also died its natural death. Those in the media who considered the Kerry-Lugar Bill a matter of national sovereignty have not even asked the PML-N or PML-Q to bring their own resolutions in the National Assembly on the matter.

Now that Hillary Clinton has spoken, the two Muslims Leagues would not dare condemn the US through a resolution in Parliament. The purpose of the fuss over the bill, like the NRO non-debate, was to undermine the Zardari presidency. The Pakistani military is fighting the battle for the country’s survival in Waziristan.

For years at least some of our anchors have claimed that the Mehsud militants are backed by foreign enemies of Pakistan. But neither the war in Waziristan nor the terrorist attacks in Rawalpindi have received the kind of attention that befits them. For the overzealous TV anchors, the real issue is how to embarrass President Zardari. Some of them claim they have the establishments backing in doing so.

Those striving for a Constitutional knockout of President Zardari need to reconsider whether they will accomplish anything even if they succeed. The first consequence of such a knockout would be to give the PPP and the Bhutto-Zardari family the mantle of victimhood once again. After the initial grumbling is over, the People’s Party will most likely rally round the family that has given the greatest sacrifices for it. Even if Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani becomes part of the knockout plan, which is highly unlikely, he would be reduced to the same position as Farooq Leghari was within months of his action against Benazir Bhutto in 1996.

If the fingerprints of the establishment are found in President Zardari’s decapitation, as the anti-Zardari anchors and columnists claim, it would revive in all likelihood the anti-establishment polarization that the military sought to end by withdrawing from politics after the eclipse of General Pervez Musharraf. In any case, why should the establishment become part of an anti-Zardari game plan if all it would do is bring Mr Nawaz Sharif to power?

The issue of civil-military relations will certainly not be resolved to the establishments satisfaction because if Mr. Nawaz Sharif rises to power with the weakening of a Zardari-led PPP then he is unlikely to be more deferential to GHQ.

Since the unfortunate era of General Ziaul Haq the Pakistani establishment has had a pro-Jihad faction that operates politically through the media and various political actors. These people did not respect General Asif Nawaz, General Abdul Waheed, or General Jehangir Karamat. General Pervez Musharraf pleased them by championing adventurism in Kargil but lost their backing in the post-9/11 context. Now, too, it is not General Ashfaq Kayani who wants an army (or establishment) role in politics. It is the beneficiaries of Jihad Inc., including the many media figures beholden to the Jihadis, who want to shoot at a liberal government using the establishments shoulder.

If Pakistan will gain nothing from upsetting the applecart, why are some people so insistent on continuing to distract the nation from fighting terrorism and from sympathizing with terrorist victims? Why not allow the Parliament to decide matters even if it is with a single vote? Why don’t the TV anchors ask Imran Khan how he can judge the government’s actions and claim to speak for the people without being elected? Why is every initiative of PML-N a media initiative and never brought to the elected chambers? Is it not the purpose of democracy to find a way to get past issues instead of getting bogged down by them?

The media, especially its electronic manifestation, seems like a bunch of quacks (fake doctors) that keep generating campaign after campaign against someone they dislike (President Zardari). It is time the people fight back and say let there be some sanity in the country. Let priorities be priorities.

Like the title of the Hindi movie Lagay Raho Munna Bhai, we need to learn to ignore the TV anchors and say Lagay Raho media Bhai and pay attention to the lives of people instead of the artificial politics of talk shows. If the talk show crowd has evidence of corruption, let them take it to the independent judiciary, which they claim they got restored. If there is an issue that requires Parliamentary attention, let Parliament vote on it. It is time for real action, not media campaigns.

For twenty-four hours after a tragedy like the Rawalpindi terrorist attack, the nation should be allowed to grieve and sympathize with the victims. The media and the establishment some anchors so frequently quote should give the people a break.

 Sadiq Saleem is a businessman and part-time analyst based in Toronto, Canada. sadiqsaleemca@gmail.com

Watching American Secretary of State Hillary Clinton interact with university students in Lahore was a sad spectacle. Sadder still was to see our most influential TV anchors and columnists betray their limited knowledge of facts while trying to impress their audience with their solid nationalist credentials.

In the aftermath of Hillary’s straight talk, Pakistanis must seriously examine how we discuss international relations on the basis of sentiment and without knowing or examining basic facts. The most glaring error of fact by a Pakistani came during Ms Clinton’s interview with Pakistani TV anchors. One gentleman tried to make the point that the US does not provide enough assistance to Pakistan and that Pakistan’s leaders sell the country cheap. He said that the US paid Kyrgyzstan $700 million in rent for just one airbase. Hillary tried to correct him and said the actual amount of rent was around $50 million. Our anchor-columnist was unfazed and insisted that must be the figure per month. But anyone with access to the internet can find out that as of June this year the US pays Kyrgyzstan $60 million per year as rent for the Manas air force base. Until June the rent was only $17 million.

Hillary was closer to the facts while the anchor-columnist was off by at least $640 million. His hostility towards the US, not facts, defined his question and none of his anchor colleagues were better acquainted with facts to help correct him.

At Government College Lahore, there appeared to be no diversity of views among the many students gathered to talk to the US Secretary of State. It was as if everyone was speaking from one single narrative -Pakistan’s victimhood (mazlumiat) and America’s mistakes. Nobody seemed to have read anything else. There was no mention of divergent or convergent national interests, of the internal threat Pakistan faces from terrorism, of Pakistan’s hostile neighborhood and what options we might have in staving off Indian hegemony.

Nobody seemed to know about basic facts that can be found in the thousands of books that are produced everyday around the world. It was a reflection of the sorry state of knowledge in Pakistan.

Student after student at GC stood up to ask questions that were rooted in the narrative of victimhood and conspiracy theories widely circulated around the country. To her credit, Hillary Clinton responded thoughtfully and without the screaming that characterizes discussion and debate in Pakistan. But nobody in her several audiences seemed to understand any of Pakistan’s problems that are not related to the United States. After all, we are the nation that failed to debate our failure in erstwhile East Pakistan for over two decades after the fall of Dhaka. We blame others. We do not analyse or take responsibility.

Yes, the US walked away from Afghanistan and Pakistan in 1989 and almost everyone including Americans agrees that was a mistake. But should Pakistan have continued to nurture Jihadis who are now launching terrorist attacks around Pakistan in the subsequent 20 years and can the US be blamed for that?

The US had nothing to do with the sectarian Jihadis of Southern Punjab and surely Pakistan’s people and our establishment have some responsibility for what has been happening in the country since the Americans terminated their Afghanistan operations in 1989?

It appears that none of Pakistan’s young people brain-washed into an anti-American fury by a one sided media and the Jihadi mind-set, have ever thought about that. Only 58% of children between the age of 5 and 15 in Pakistan go to school compared with 92% for India and 96% for Bangladesh. Can Pakistanis blame this on the US as well? None of Pakistan’s colleges or universities is included among the world’s top 500 universities listed recently by the University of Shanghai in China.

Is America at fault? Pakistan ranks 141 among 182 countries in human development indicators. Can we blame the US for our national choices, especially after we have been so abusive about the Kerry-Lugar aid package that would enable the revenue-deficient government to increase expenditure on health and education several fold?

Pakistan’s range of exports is very limited. Pakistan has remained primarily a textile exporter and an exporter of agricultural products. Pakistan’s business community and Pakistan’s agriculturists do not pay much tax. Is the US responsible for all of that too?

Pakistan has fought three full-scale wars with India and at least one mini war after having tested nuclear weapons in 1998 (the Kargil episode). How can we Pakistanis blame these military blunders on the United States?

Perhaps it is time for Pakistanis to start learning about a worldview other than the one in which America is demonized and none of Pakistan’s internal weaknesses and flaws are ever discussed. America is not perfect but neither is Pakistan. It is time for some of the TV anchors and columnists to start wondering why is it that Pakistan’s establishment is entitled to give opinions on political matters when that is not the constitutional position.

Only recently, some people have been writing about how the establishment is fed up of President Zardari. Even if it is, why should that be the basis for President Zardari’s ouster or diminishing of his powers? Shouldn’t “the establishment” deal with whatever is its constitutional responsibility and stay away from other matters?

Pakistan’s political discussion or reporting is not based on facts. It is dominated by opinions and allegations. So overwhelming is the culture of intimidation that anyone who tries to draw attention to inconvenient facts or introduce another set of opinions is immediately called a foreign agent. The Aslam Beg-Hamid Gul mindset that has dominated Pakistan since the death of General Ziaul Haq has not contributed to real openness.

Hillary Clinton has raised some pertinent questions and I hope that we will keep asking some questions ourselves. Why should we not listen to those Pakistanis who have an opinion different than this overwhelming majority brainwashed into a certain worldview? Why should I get hateful emails each time I express an opinion different to that of the pro-Taliban and the pro-Jihad mob in Pakistan?

Why any of Pakistan’s officials should be denigrated as unpatriotic or described as foreign agents just for saying that in their opinion there is another point of view than what our anchors and the students at Government College Lahore reeled off during the Hillary Clinton visit?

It is time for a genuine debate in Pakistan on all issues. Get out the facts, discuss them and then reach any conclusion or opinion you like. But if we are to resent the United States on the wrong assumption that it is paying Kyrgyzstan $700 million for one air base while we are being given less then that resentment is just plain wrong. Can we have a discussion based on facts and not on labels, abuse and outright propaganda?

 (Sadiq Saleem is a businessman and part-time analyst based in Toronto, Canada E-mail: sadiqsaleemca@gmail.com)