The labour pains of Pakistan

Raju Korti

Another head rolls. Nawaz Sharif.

In November 2013, I wrote one of my several blogs on Pakistan, ending it with a punchline "Welcome to Pakistan where the most insidious survive." Pakistan continues to plumb newer depths, yet a regular recap of the country's tumultuous existence makes for a spell binding reading with facts stranger than fiction.
With the Supreme Court of Pakistan disqualifying Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif, another head has rolled. He joins the elite band of all elected PMs who have never been allowed to complete their terms. A quick recap of this Quixotic turn of events will show how Pakistan has turned into a theatre of the absurd. I shall consciously refrain from making personal comments in this blog since in this case, information itself doubles up as opinion.
The story begins with first Prime Minister Liaqat Ali Khan who was murdered after 4 years. Khawaja Nazimuddin was deposed after 17 months. Mohammad Ali Bogra and Chaudhary Mohammad Ali were forced to resign when they had barely completed two years in office. Hussain Shaheed Suhrawardy was chucked out after one year. I I Chundrigar had to resign after one month while Feroze Khan Noon served 10 months before being thrown out. Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto managed to occupy the office for four years after which he was toppled and hanged to death. Mohammad Khan Junejo stuck around for 30 months after which he was unceremoniously dismissed. Benazir Bhutto was elected PM twice but was chucked out after 30 months each and later murdered. Nawaz Sharif was thrice elected and removed thrice after serving 30 months, 30 months and four years each. (Looks like 30 months seems to be the standard grace period). Zafarullah Jamali was forced to quit after almost two years. Yousaf Raza Gillani was removed after four years.
General Ayub Khan overthrew a politically elected government and came to power. He set the precedent of Martial Law and ruled Pakistan for nine years. His authoritarian rule finally led to the fall of Dhaka. As a result of mass unrest, General Ayub beat a retreat in 1969. Soon thereafter, it was assessed that Ayub Khan's son Gohar's personal wealth at $ 4 million and his family's wealth at $ 10-20 million. No action was forced to probe his wealth. After he died in 1974, he was buried with full military honours. Ayub handed over the reins to General Yahya Khan who was notorious for his debauchery. He was one of the key players in the dismemberment of his country in 1971. No action was taken against him for the damage and ignominy he brought to his country. He died in 1980 and was buried with full military honours.
In July 1977, Zia ul Haq toppled Bhutto's government, suspended the Constitution and declared Martial law. He used religion to prolong his rule, oppressed people and punished anyone who dared speak against him. After a dubious travel, Bhutto was hanged. Cultural and liberal secular values (much tom tommed in India) were systematically demolished by Zia. Seeds of militancy and sectarianism were sown, which today has put the country under constant turmoil. Kalashnikov and heroin culture flourished and Pakistan was embroiled in an unending war in Pakistan during Zia's reign. After he died in a mysterious air crash in 1988, he was buried with full military honours.
General Pervez Musharraf came to power by staging a coup d' etat against Nawaz Sharif. After Musharraf was forced to step down by two major political parties as President in 2008, he was booked and charged with high treason for implementing emergency rule and suspending the Constitution. He was also named as a prime suspect in an assassination case. In 2013, Musharraf was indicted for Benazir Bhutto's assassination. Till recently, his wealth was put at 2 billion net cash in his offshore bank accounts besides other movable and immovable property but in his official papers submitted to the Election Commission he declared that his worth "mere" Rs 626 million. No action was taken to probe his wealth and though an absconder, he is leading a life of luxury in Dubai.
Sharif's party obtained 1.5 crore votes and has been removed by an order of the highest court. Sharif has not been dismissed on the contention of Panama papers (owning four flats in UK) not on corruption charges but on the flimsy ground of not declaring a supposedly a receivable amount (10,000 dirhams which is Rs 2.5 lakh) from the company of his son. The court gave the verdict that Sharif was no more sadiq (truthful) and amin (righteous). By the way, a very large number of judges and generals do not have a National Tax Number (something like our PAN) and those who do have an NTN and submit their tax returns generally conceal their actual income and assets. So much for sadiq and amin.
The original case revolving around Panamagate was about the ownership of four flats in London, corruption of public money and living beyond means. Neither the Joint Investigation Team nor the Supreme Court were able to substantiate any charge contained in the original prayer. And since Sharif was neither a judge nor a general but an elected Prime Minister, he has been disqualified for life without any trial, without any conviction.
Will Pakistan ever determine the rules of the game and the jurisdiction of the State institutions? Or continue its march towards total anarchy?
(Thanks to Mr Waseem Altaf for some inputs)  

War between hostility and diplomacy

Raju Korti

Modi and Xi: Shake or bake. (pmindia.gov.in)

All those wondering about the continued Chinese threats of a military conflict against India in the wake of Sikkim stand-off, I have borne this before. The Chinese do not issue empty threats. This posturing has worked against Americans right from the days of Richard Nixon but this time, the stage is South-East Asia and despite the Chinese wielding a considerable amount of influence in Sri Lanka, Nepal and Pakistan, India hasn't blinked -- far cry from the memories of that disastrous war in 1962.
With the exception of Pakistan, the other countries have not exactly fallen in line and they still consider India as big brother given the history. Apparently, the Chinese are trying to tackle India by also diminishing its influence in the neighbourhood. So it is not about military confrontation alone. In Bhutan, the borders are not properly demarcated and Doklam is one such contentious area. In all probability this dispute is in for a long haul.For the first time I discern that while a war hysteria has been whipped up by the Chinese, something that Indian people are hugely concerned in the shadow of history, the Indian government has chosen to play it down by not responding in the same measure. The Chinese, true to their style, have quickly massed their troops along the border and although New Delhi denies any such build-up in retaliation, there are unconfirmed reports that the army is not taking the Chinese threat lying down.
There is a school of thought that says China cannot afford a military confrontation because there is a huge market for their goods in India which means that economic considerations over-rule the compulsions of a war. If a war breaks out Doklam will provide the Chinese with a dominant ground by taking the strategic India, China, Bhutan tri-junction. If and when that happens, the Reds will be dangerously close because the corridor would connect them with North-East from where the Indian border is just 30 kms away. Of course, China has a track record of going ahead with its expansionist policies even in the midst of diplomatic moves. Remember when Xi came to India and was talking to Modi, Chinese troops had made inroads into Ladakh. Read it with the situation in 1962 when China attacked India in the thick of Hindi-Chini-bhai-bhai hoopla.
There seems to be a lot of confusion about the way Indian government is responding to the crisis. The issue is bound to come up with the country's National Security advisor in Beijing. Much depends on how the governments deals with the situation at the diplomatic level because despite the much touted improved capacity of the Army, the fact remains that it still is a lopsided comparison. What goes in India's favour is that there is some political upheaval in China and it cannot do more than raising a full scale war bogey. That gives India some breathing time. There is also a feeling among the Chinese people that Xi is just trying to cash in on raising nationalism as public sentiment like Modi is doing in India. I foresee only skirmishes and not a war at least until September. Besides, the Indian Army is well prepared this time and they would be no pushovers as they were five decades back.
The Chinese have a 70 billion dollar business with India which is a huge deterrent but China believes in muscle flexing more than its external economic compulsions. As for the army might, the Chinese are an untested force. They haven't fought a war as against India which is more war-tuned given the Pakistan factor and the military drills it conducts across many countries. However, there are several imponderables in the situation from which it is difficult to predict if there would be a war.
Until then there will be a war between hostility and diplomacy.

On the positive side, this is what I wrote barely a year back.
If there is one thing that you got to give it to the ruthlessly pushy Chinese, it is their clear perceptions in not mixing bilateral trade with security issues. So even as Prime Minister Narendra Modi carries forward his investment caravan by hosting the incumbent President Xi Jinping with Khaman Dhokla and Won Ton soup for the starters, there is a reasonable sense of optimism that the country's creaking infrastructure will get a much needed boost from this new-found engagement.
Naysayers will, of course, be quick to harp on China's past record in treachery as also its meagre investments post-2000 but much water has flown under the bridge since the visits of President Jiang Zemin and President Hu Jintao where diplomacy had taken precedence over bilateral trade. One should not be surprised if Jinping has come with a baggage that aims at arresting the growing trade deficit against India. Modi actually deserves a pat for making it implicitly clear to Beijing that the only mutually beneficial option was trade investment rather than tariff concessions. While investment per se may not be a conduit for bringing down the trade deficit, it could help the country's manufacturing sector through imports from China.

Harmanpreet as part of Indian XI

Raju Korti

Harmanpreet, the new rock star. (File grab)

Let me make an honest confession. I do not watch women's cricket as avidly as I watch men's cricket. Not because I consider them less talented and entertaining but just because it is not often that you see them on the big stage.
Watching Harmanpreet Kaur yesterday late evening brutally savage the Aussies in the Women's World Cup Semi Finals at Derby with a flurry of audacious strokes, I have decided to go beyond the regulation accolades that have been pouring in. Why not have Harmanpreet in the Indian playing XI? She performed on the big stage, delivered a swashbuckling performance any male cricketer would have been envious of. The sheer power that her willow exuded -- some of her big shots landing more than 80 meters -- made me wonder in what way was she less than any of the Kohlis, Yuvrajs and Dhonis. Even they don't hit seven sixes in a crunch match like the one yesterday. This is, of course, just a figurative comparison.
Harmanpreet is an Indian first. I am quite enamored by the thought that she should be included in the Indian playing XI. Among other things, it will be an exemplary beginning to end gender discrimination that follows the putrid male chauvinism and what better than to begin with Sports?
The electrifying knock transported me to 1975 when West Indian Roy Fredericks punctured the bloated egos of Lillee and Thomson at their furious best with a stunning 169 of which 100 were brought in in just eight overs. Mind you both West Indies and Australia were playing to their full potential with a cream of players. In an informal chat much later, former Aussie captain Ian Chappel told me that it was the most amazing batting display that he had ever seen - a view concurred by many others of that era. That was a Test match. Harmanpreet did it in limited overs do-or-die match.
It is saddening to see the Indian media, which is over-obsessed with politics, not taking enough cognizance of a player who did India so proud almost single-handed yesterday. And it goes ga ga over men's cricket, writing reams.
That intense, clinical demolition from Indian women, however, left me penitent -- of having missed out on earlier matches. A victory is a victory is a victory. Let's raise a toast to this wonderful team. And one way of doing it could be rewarding them as handsomely as they do men cricketers. I am sure Mr Moneybags BCCI, which has lakhs to pay for one six and one catch, can dish out enough money to these women to motivate them into a more fighting outfit. If the coach of the Indian cricket team is worthy of being paid Rs 8 crore annually for coaching players that need no coaching, surely we can do by diverting some of the overflowing coffers to those who have brought India no less glory.
Till then, at least bring in the red carpet.     

War with China then, war with China now

Raju Korti

Chou en Lai and Nehru: Comrades in arms!

The only real mistake is the one from which we learn nothing. Long since it fought a disastrous war with China in 1962, the Indian government seems to have learnt precious little. The Chinese are not known to give empty threats. Three weeks into the Sikkim stand off with China, the Communist country has warned of a even more severe backlash. China believes India is using its military might as a leverage in Sikkim and thus a case of blatant provocation.
The Indian Army's track record has been impeccable but the 1962 war, which caught it off guard, remains a black spot on its reputation. To be fair to the Army, the war was lost much before it moved to defend the country, thanks to the spineless political leadership of the time.
Political leaders including the Leftists and then home minister Krishna Menon in their considered wisdom thought that the Chinese were merely indulging in sabre rattling. However, once the conflict started, even old friend USSR left India to fend for herself.
Such was the ineptitude and carelessness of the government of the day that it even ignored a carefully prepared report of the Army about China's impending aggression. The stone-faced Krishna Menon, close chum of Jawaharlal Nehru, seemed to live in their ivory towers. Had the warnings been heeded to, India would have been spared of the blushes and tragedy of a massive defeat and large number of casualties.Clearly, the Indian government, without a think-tank, had underestimated the Chinese resolve. The attack happened when the country's leadership was sitting and discussing policies that were utterly unrealistic, not realizing that a treacherous, expansionist neighbour cannot and should never be trusted. As it turned out, the attack in Ladakh and Arunachal (then NEFA), took the incompetent leadership by complete surprise. To cap it all, a post war report laid the blame squarely the Chief of Army Staff and Chief of General Staff for the debacle.
Hindi Chini Bhai Bhai was a standard diplomatic line that got undue and unfounded importance in the late 50s and early 60s from the likes of Nehru. Though the reasons for this sudden build up of such high levels of trust on China was befuddling, it was actually utter foolishness. As events unfolded, this over-affectionate posturing towards China spelled doom.
From what emerged of the post-war reports, it was India who provoked the Chinese Army despite being well aware that it lacked the capacity to take the latter head on. The trigger was also a provocative statement that Nehru made and irked Mao Zedong.
It is widely believed that the Indian Army ran out of food, artillery and ammo supplies during the war. The back up was weak and a long status quo only resulted in compounding the situation on the border. In short, logistical failure was also among the reason why the Indians took a beating.
The most embarrassing part of the story was the weak and inefficient political leadership. Nehru leaned too much on a tactless Menon who just wasn't able to anticipate the seriousness of the situation. India lost far too many soldiers because of poor leadership.
If the leadership was inane and ludicrous, the Army was thoroughly unprepared. Though particularly impressive in its own backyard, absence of strategy and advanced weapons was a recipe for disaster. From the war emerged an Army whose morale had chafed.
That was 55 years ago. Today if India's military might has gone up manifold, so has China's. That brings the stand off situation to Square One. Moral of the story: The error of the past is the wisdom and success of the future.