The Muslim World at the Crossroads

The Muslim world at the crossroads
By Talat Masood
Published: March 11, 2015
The writer is a retired lieutenant general of the Pakistan Army and served as chairman of the Pakistan
Ordnance Factories Board

In the Middle East, a tragic picture is emerging. Iraq, Syria, Libya and now
Yemen are being torn apart by geo-sectarian and ethnic conflicts. Bahrain, too,
is on the edge and is keeping the lid on internal sectarian rivalry by repressive
measures. Regional rivals, Saudi Arabia and Iran, through their proxy wars, are
adding fuel to the fire. What they fail to see is that this is acting as a catalyst for
the Islamic State (IS) and other militant groups to expand their power bases.
The Arab Spring has turned into an ‘Arab Autumn’. The only exception in the
Arab world is Tunisia where the Arab Spring has proved a great success and
democracy is taking roots with a progressive and modern outlook. In contrast, in
Egypt, where the influence of the military runs deep, General Sisi, after ousting
the elected president Mohamed Morsi in 2014, has reverted to authoritarian
rule. Autocratic meltdown is evident in Libya and countries of the Middle East
are at different stages of transition. Yemen, as noted earlier, has collapsed and
Syria is halfway there with large ungoverned spaces struggling hard to avert
total breakdown despite avid support from Iran and Russia. Saudi Arabia, the
icon of the Arab world, is engaged in a three-front battle. It is fighting the IS and
al Qaeda, running a proxy war against Iran by supporting groups that are
fighting Bashar al-Assad in Syria, the regime in Iraq and the Houthi tribesman of
Yemen. It faces occasional resistance from its Shia community in the eastern
part of the country. Some frustrated segments of Saudi youth are reported to
have joined the IS. There is also pressure on the monarchy for reform and easing
of restrictions on women and on freedom of speech. With oil prices falling and
the US now able to export oil instead of being dependent on imports, the
importance of oil-producing Gulf countries has diminished.
To add to Saudi woes, Washington looks close to wrapping up a nuclear deal with
Tehran. With the experience of hindsight, Riyadh is justified in seeking ironclad
guarantees because Iran has in the past secretely engaged in a nuclear
enrichment programme. No wonder then that in recent years, Riyadh has made
moves to start its own civilian nuclear programme with the help of French
companies in the framework of the NPT. Saudi Arabia is taking a hard position as
it fears that even the acquisition of civil nuclear technology by Iran could tilt the
strategic balance in the latter’s favour. But with Iran’s economy in distress —
due to sanctions and low oil prices — it seems agreeable to cut back
significantly on the centrifuges.
Israel, which itself is an opaque nuclear power, hypocritically remains the most
vehement critic of any deal that allows Iran to retain nuclear infrastructure or a
capability for indigenous uranium enrichment. Israel also enjoys the full backing
of the Republicans in the US in its opposition to the Iranian nuclear programme.
This was evident from the ecstatic reception accorded to Benjamin Netanyahu
during his recent emotional address to Congress.

From the Iranian leadership’s perspective, this is a strategic moment as it has
significantly advanced its influence in several regional countries. In Iraq, Syria,
Libya and Yemen, power is now in the hands of those parties or groups that are
close to Iran. Moreover, in Lebanon, the pro-Iran Hezbollah’s influence has been
increasing and Hamas in Gaza enjoys a cosy relationship with Tehran. Iran has
also significantly increased its influence in Afghanistan.
The Saudis are worried that once the nuclear deal materialises, the US will lean
towards Tehran because it has more in common with it and that will further alter
the strategic balance in Iran’s favour. Secretary John Kerry, during his recent
visit to Riyadh, tried to allay these concerns but doubts remain. However, the
Saudis are taking no chances and are building an alliance to countervail Iran. A
stream of recent visitors to Riyadh that includes the presidents of Egypt and
Turkey, and Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif is a manifestation of this policy in which
support of these countries is being vigorously sought.
The Saudis and Iranians realise that with increased oil production in the US and
growing alternative sources of energy, oil is no longer a key strategic
determinant. What really matters is the internal strength of these countries that
is dependent on domestic cohesion, the level of democratisation, and
institutional and economic development. Although neither of these two
countries can claim to be democratic, Iran clearly is more homogeneous, has an
educated elite and is less dependent on foreign support.
Pakistan’s vital national interests require extremely deft handling of its relations
with both these countries. Iran is a key neighbour with whom we have strong
cultural and religious ties and share a long border in the restive province of
Balochistan. Pakistan has a large Shia population, estimates range between 15
to 20 per cent, which has a close affinity with Iran. We also have to be mindful of
close relations of Iran with Afghanistan, India and Russia. An antagonistic
relationship with Tehran will add a new and dangerous element in our fight for
internal stability and peace that could lead to increased turbulence in
Balochistan and other parts of Pakistan.
For us, Saudi Arabia is a strategic partner and an indispensable ally. Being
custodians of Makkah and Medina, they enjoy a special place in the hearts of our
people. Of course, we have to fully support Saudi Arabia in its fight against the
IS and al Qaeda. But we should avoid getting caught in a nutcracker by taking
sides. No country has suffered as much as Pakistan by joining regional and
global alliances. It is clearly in our best interest to balance the relationship with
Iran and Saudi Arabia and endeavour to play a conciliatory role by bringing the
adversaries to work for the common good of their people and the region. By
taking sides, we will further sharpen the divide in the Middle East and the raging
flames will engulf Pakistan in a much bigger way than we have ever experienced
in the past.

Senate: ideals and practice
By Imtiaz Gul
Published: March 11, 2015

0SHARES
FACEBOOK TWITTER EMAIL

The writer heads the independent Centre for Research and Security Studies, Islamabad

The brazen trading of votes and money surrounding the recent round of Senate
electionsdeserves a dispassionate debate. It has not only exposed the ruling
elite’s selfish propensity to buy a seat in the Upper House but also kicked up a
critically important question: is the Senate meant to protect smaller provinces
from the so-called “tyranny of the majority” as argued by James Madison, the
fourth president of the United States (1809–17), or is it a debating club largely
for the kith and kin of the ruling elite and their affluent friends who can throw
money bags at their voters?
Let us see what motivated the founding fathers of the United States to suggest a
bicameral legislature. They, including Madison, envisioned the Senate to be a
wise stabilising force, elected not by mass electors, but selected by state
legislators. Senators would be more knowledgeable and more deliberate, as was
the assumption. The Upper House was designed to shield minority federating
units/provinces from the oppression of the majority.
Bicameral legislatures are linked primarily to their federal political structure and
are supposed to ensure that smaller states within a federation or union are not
overshadowed by larger states, which may have more representation in the

other House of the legislature. It is also supposed to guard against an
encroaching centre.
Contrast this with the Senate of Pakistan. The motive behind the creation of the
Senate was also to give equal representation to all the four federating units
since the membership of the National Assembly was based on the population of
each province. Equal provincial membership in the Upper House, thought the
authors of the 1973 Constitution, would offset the provincial inequality in the
National Assembly.
Where is that spirit? Has the Senate acted as a pivot of wisdom? Has it
protected the rights of Balochistan? Have its members and the mainstream
political parties upheld their constitutional obligations? Well, by indulging in
buying and selling of votes, many aspirants to the Senate shamed democracy —
they committed nothing less than a murder of the very democratic norms that
these parliamentarians are supposed to stand for.
The PML-N advocated fair elections but itself awarded one of the Balochistan
tickets to an extremely wealthy lawmaker who originates from Punjab, Kulsoom
Perveen. The Sharifs shelved all their moral scruples when awarding the ticket to
her in a blatant misuse of authority. Raheela Magsi, a PML-N senator elected
from Islamabad, also defied the logic of representation of smaller provinces.
Similarly, Fata senators reportedly upped the ante at the eleventh hour but the
late promulgation of an ordinance came in their way. Close to Fata is a
particularly wealthy family from Dera Ismail Khan, whose affluence almost
always got it Senate tickets. However, this time around Pervez Khattak, the
Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa chief minister, came in its way. For the first time, a chief
minister outwitted money-wielders and denied them votes from within the PTI.
It is about time, it seems, to build a bottom-up pressure for reviewing and
reforming the farce that is called the Senate of Pakistan. Why can’t we have a
direct election for the Upper House too?

Where are our local governments?
By Tariq Mahmud
Published: March 10, 2015

0SHARES
FACEBOOK TWITTER EMAIL

The writer is an author, a public policy analyst and a former federal secretary. He teaches at the Lahore
University of Management Sciences

The debate on local governments (LG) in Pakistan these days misses a key
point: what types of functions will these institutions carry out? LG institutions
are facing a pincer movement: the dithering over the holding of LG polls has
eroded their representative legitimacy, while there has also been a gradual yet
blatant takeover of some of the core functions of LGs by provincial governments.
What we are seeing right now is the growing municipalisation of provincial
governments, which are dabbling in the construction of roads and underpasses
in cities, making arrangements for solid waste management as well as
regulating building control mechanisms. We have the Sindh Building Control
Authority while Punjab is also not lagging behind either with a draft bill on a
similar body being established in the province being mulled over at the highest
policy level. What we have seen over the years are non-representative federal
and provincial bodies taking over cities, whether it is the KDA, the LDA, the QDA
or the PDA, or the water boards or sanitation authorities. All these bodies are run
by appointees who are not elected representatives. This state of affairs alludes
to the tendency of our higher echelons of government preferring to keep control
of matters which are essentially of local nature and should fall within the domain
of LGs. In the past, LG institutions, till the incumbency of the last PML-N

government, enjoyed considerable financial space and were able to raise a vast
range of local taxes. I recall that district councils all over Punjab used to have
appreciable surpluses on account of provision of export taxes. Likewise, urban
local councils had good earnings through octroi despite the drain that electricity
bills and expenditures on health and education facilities were on resources. Not
only did these taxes help cover important expenditures, the way they were
raised and their administration provided a good training ground for the elected
leadership and staff of local councils. Later some key taxes were abolished at
the behest of donors. Instead, a percentage of the general sales tax collection
was set aside for local councils. The new arrangement not only denied these
councils the opportunity to develop the capacity and skills to manage their own
tax portfolio but also bound them into a dependency relationship as they were
now reliant on federal dole. Their autonomy was also curbed. While there were
some complaints regarding how local councils collected taxes, instead of
removing the bottlenecks, the government readily relented to the donors’ diktat.
Where do we stand today? In Punjab, as mentioned earlier, there are serious
attempts to set up a building control authority with the provincial government
attempting to take over a key function, which would deny an income base to the
local councils in the name of better management of spatial developments. In
addition, waste management and even the subject of cattle markets is being
taken out of the purview of LGs by setting up companies to look after these
domains, which are not answerable to local councils. Their boards of directors
are headed by government appointees. The regulation of cattle markets had
been an important function of rural councils as well as a significant source of
revenue. In major towns of Punjab, with the setting up of parks and horticultural
authorities that come under the provincial government, a key source of revenue
in the form of income from bill boards and hoardings has already been taken out
of the purview of municipal bodies. If this was not enough, under the new law on
LGs, district education and health authorities are to be set up whose chiefs shall
be appointed by the provincial government. A plain reading of the law does not
give us any clue as to the relationship these authorities will have with the local
councils.
The issue here is not of service delivery only, but of representative legitimacy
which is at stake because of these moves and our legislators are completely
indifferent to the consequences of their acts. There may be some incomesharing between these upcoming entities and local councils but that will not
resolve the issue at hand, which is about hampering the development of local
level leadership and denying it the opportunity to gain valuable experience. The
real leadership of this country is not going to emerge through our lacklustre
assemblies. It is local level participative institutions that could provide a
springboard for the launching of new and authentic leadership in Pakistan. It
should be noted that personalities like Recep Tayyip Erdogan, Ahmadinejad and
Joko Widodo were products of similar local level nurseries. What we require is
fostering self-belief in our institutions instead of tinkering with them
unnecessarily, which can result in unintended consequences.

Published in The Express Tribune, March 10th, 2015.
Like Opinion & Editorial on Facebook, follow @ETOpEd on Twitter to receive all
updates on all our daily pieces.

Like Us On Facebook
Follow Us On Twitter

Get News Every Evening

As ye sow so shall ye reap
Today, the dream of IS is morphing into a reality but with the savagery
and brutality that comes with war





Ayaz Fakir
March 11, 2015
Be First To Comment

Fast moving events in the Middle East are focusing the world’s attention towards
the latest troublespot: Syria. Islamic State (IS), being the new kid on the block,
has quickly established itself as the force to be reckoned with. It has shown it
has the required ruthlessness to make others sit up and pay attention. The
current situation has the Saudis worried, who have till now been encouraging
and exporting their Wahhabi extremism, creating terrorist cells throughout
Pakistan. The Osama bin Laden outfit — al Qaeda — was the most visible and

successful terrorist network, created ostensibly to destroy the Soviet incursion
into Afghanistan. This culminated in the twin tower bombing, the effects of
which are still being felt in the US.

Wahhabi madrassas (seminaries) are a breeding ground for suicide bombers
and are destroying the once calm countryside that was Pakistan’s peaceful rural
hinterland. Wahhabi extremism has cost Pakistan over 50,000 dead and many
more injured. The huge funding by the Saudis (read Wahhabis) who are behind
the killing of Shias in Balochistan are undermining the provincial administration.
They are fighting a turf war against the Iranians on Pakistani soil, creating more
than a headache for the Pakistani administration. Pakistan has enough problems
grappling with poverty and illiteracy without Wahhabi funded terrorist activities.
The killings of Shias and the targeting of Shia mosques is not only reprehensible
but anti-Islam. However, with Saudi blessings, an Islamic cover is a given. The
danger is to the state of Pakistan and this threat can destabilise Pakistan.

Pakistan is going through an extremely difficult period with political parties
riddled in corruption facing charges of rigged elections and an army that is
fighting a battle to root out insurgents in the northern areas. These insurgents
have been funded by the same Wahhabis that are now seeking our help against
the IS, the new threat that is assuming international proportions. IS is
managing to attract school children even from Europe. Concerned parents have
raised the alarm and the British and French governments are scrambling to
stem this flow of children heading off to join IS in Syria. The growing popularity
of IS is spreading from Syria towards Yemen and on towards Saudi Arabia,
making the already shaky House of Saud even more nervous.

Today, the dream of IS is morphing into a reality but with the savagery and
brutality that comes with war. It is this savagery that has scared the Saudis into
rushing to call in their favours from Pakistan whilst ignoring the damage they
have inflicted upon Pakistan by their reckless funding of Wahhabi madrassas. It
is also the fault of our leaders that we have managed to allow the Saudis to
spread their nefarious influence and have allowed the madrassas to indulge in
their spread of terrorist activities for a few pieces of silver. Before the clearing of

the northern areas, a cleansing of the madrassas should be done. The
madrassas, like the monasteries of old, are indeed major contributors to the
feeding and sheltering of poor children. And as such they are welcome.
However, when these madrassas become nests for training suicide bombers,
they must be severely dealt with. Also, the political parties that provide cover
for such madrassas should be banned. There cannot be two opinions on this.
The government should have kept a close watch on their activities, monitoring
them from time to time. At any sign of militant behaviour the madrassas should
have been shut down and handed over to a peaceful group, of which there are
many. The government of Pakistan should not have ignored the signs of
militancy long before the suicide vests started being manufactured.

Why have our successive administrators turned a blind eye to the growth of
terror schools? A classic case was the Lal Masjid cleric who challenged the writ
of the state and continued to do so while kidnapping the workers of beauty
parlours in Islamabad. The burka brigade was seen on television armed with
bamboo sticks guarding the perimetre of the madrassa in between patrolling the
streets of Islamabad to impose their version of Islamic laws. They challenged
the writ of the state and only a crackdown ordered by the ministry of interior
brought it to a halt. The cleanup was costly and many lives were lost. It also
served to bring down the Musharraf government.

Pakistanis are a peaceful people, poor but hardworking. They are forced to send
their children to madrassas for lodging and education, certainly not to be
trained as terrorists and to do the bidding of foreigners for their own special
agenda. Sunni-Shia wars are being fought on our soil. This is unacceptable.
When General Raheel Sharif visited Saudi Arabia it was believed that a message
was delivered to the Saudis that the funding to terrorist madrassas should be
stopped. The message now should be stronger. If IS has grown into a monster,
it has been created by Saudi funding and maybe now it is too late. The monster
is turning on its own creator.

The writer is a freelance columnist

A Middle East overview
Despite several efforts by Israel to wipe out Hezbollah, Hamas and
Islamic jihad completely, Israel failed to do so, enhancing their
popularity in the Arab world





Syed Kashif Ali
March 11, 2015
Be First To Comment

The state of Israel came into being in 1948. Since its inception, besides
countless minor armed conflicts, it has fought four major wars with the Arabs in
1948, 1956, 1969 and 1973. Israel was mainly supported by the US, UK and
France while Egypt, Syria, Jordan, Iraq, Lebanon and the Palestine Liberation
Organisation (PLO) under Yasser Arafat were the key players on the Arab side.
Israel inflicted heavy loses on the Arabs and gained control of the entire
Palestinian land. In 1967, Israel destroyed most of the Egyptian, Syrian, Iraqi
and Jordanian air forces in only six days, mainly due to its deep penetration in
the power corridors of the Arab countries. By the end of the 1967 war, Israel
had control of the Gaza Strip, the West Bank (including East Jerusalem) as well
as the strategically important Sinai Peninsula (Egypt), Shebaa farms (Lebanon)
and the Golan Heights (Syria).
After the 1973 Arab-Israel war, Israel started engaging its foes in negotiations
separately. Resultantly, Egypt signed the Camp David Accord in 1978 with Israel
and separated itself from the Palestinian struggle. Iraq — one of Israel’s
implacable foes — was literally destroyed by the US and its allies in the 1991
Gulf War. Iraq’s nuclear capability was already neutralised in an Israeli strike on
its nuclear facility in June 1981.

In 1982, Israel occupied South Lebanon, a Shia Muslim majority area. The
people of South Lebanon were already preparing to fight Israel under a Shia
Muslim cleric, Imam Musa Al-Sadar, a graduate of Tehran University in Islamic
jurisprudence and political sciences, and an alumni of hawza (a Shia seminary
of the traditional Islamic school of higher learning) Qom in Iran. In 1974, Imam
Musa Al-Sadar established the Harakat al-Mahrumin (Movement of the
Deprived), a welfare organisation. In 1975, the military wing of Harakat alMahrumin, popularly known as amal, was established. Later, in 1979, after the
successful revolution in Iran, the dissidents from amal and other Shia
organisations, under the auspices of Ayatollah Khomeini, unanimously laid the
foundations of Hezbollah (Party of God) in Lebanon.
Ayatollah Khomeini ordered the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC) to
train Hezbollah. Syria agreed to allow the passage of the first 1,500 strong IRGC
contingent to Lebanon. Training camps were established in the southern Baqa’a
valley in Lebanon. A significant number of young men were imparted military as
well as spiritual training. Dr Mustafa Chamran, an IRGC commander and a PhD
in electrical engineering and plasma physics from the University of California,
under the orders of Ayatollah Khomeini, played a vital role in the ideological and
military foundations of Hezbollah. In 1983, Hezbollah carried out the Beirut
barracks bombing that killed 265 US marines and forced the Multinational Force
in Lebanon to withdraw from Beirut.
Hezbollah kept engaging Israel and its allies in Lebanon and forced Israel to
leave South Lebanon in 2000. The victory was celebrated by the whole Arab
world as a major triumph against Israel and enhanced Hezbollah’s stature as an
Arab army fighting against Israel.
After the Arabs backed off from the Palestinian struggle, the PLO kept its
political and armed struggle alive against Israel until Yasser Arafat signed the
Oslo Accords in 1993. The Oslo Accords marked the start of the Oslo Process, a
peace process that is aimed at achieving a peace treaty based on the UN
Security Council Resolution 242 and 338 and to fulfil the “right of the Palestinian
people to self-determination”. As a result of the Oslo Accords, the PLO
recognised Israel and abandoned its armed struggle. In October 1994, Israel
successfully struck a peace deal with Jordan by signing a peace agreement and,
thus, Jordon formally recognised Israel. The US and Israel were successful in
neutralising the Arab armed struggle against Israel.

Iran, Syria and Hezbollah created a new alliance against Israel and US interests
in the region. Hamas, the Palestinian militant group established in 1987, also
joined the anti-Israel alliance that later termed itself the Resistance Front. Later,
this alliance proved instrumental against Israel. Israel had to face the second
intifada (popular Palestinian uprising), two confrontations with Hamas in the
Gaza strip (in 2006 and 2009) and the 2006 Israel-Hezbollah war. Israel was
also forced to free thousands of Arab prisoners. In all these confrontations,
Tehran was the brain, Damascus was the heart and Hezbollah, Hamas and
Islamic jihad were the veritable arms of Iran, with popular support in the Arab
world.
Despite several efforts by Israel to wipe out Hezbollah, Hamas and Islamic jihad
completely, Israel failed to do so, enhancing their popularity in the Arab world.
There was no more an invincible Israel. Strategists in Israel realised that unless
Syria, the backbone of the ‘resistance’, is removed from the equation and
Tehran is stopped from passing weapons and other strategic help through
Damascus, they would not succeed in eliminating Hezbollah and Hamas
completely.
The US Arab allies like Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Qatar, Oman and Egypt also felt
threatened by the growing influence of Tehran in Baghdad, Manama, Sanaa,
Damascus, Beirut and on the Arab street in general. Turkey too felt boxed out in
the current scenario. Anxiety among the Arabs and sense of insecurity in
Israelis aligned them towards a covert alliance. The 2011 unrest in Syria was
utilised and the Syrian opposition was overtly supported. The German weekly
Der Spiegel claimed in March 2013 that the US trained Syrian anti-government
fighters in Jordan. US Senator John McCain was photographed with Syrian
fighters in May 2013 in Syria. Later, many of these militants joined hands with
the Islamic State (IS). The close cooperation between the Arabs and Israel is
evident from the Times of Israel story published on February 25, 2015 that
claimed Saudi Arabia is prepared to let Israeli fighter jets use its airspace if it
proves necessary to attack Iran’s nuclear programme. “The Saudi authorities
are completely coordinated with Israel on all matters related to Iran,” the
European official in Brussels said.
Iran and Hezbollah, on the other hand, are overtly fighting in Syria to save
Bashar Al-Assad as, according to Ali Akbar Velayati, an advisor to Iran’s
supreme leader, “Syria plays a major role in the Resistance Front of anti-Israel
states and militant groups.” Iran’s IRGC Commander General Qasim Sulemai is

reportedly commanding operations both in Iraq and Syria. The role of Hezbollah
in the Al-Qusayr fight and the killing of Iranian generals and Hezbollah’s key
personnel in Quneitra, Syria, has removed any doubts regarding the overt role
of both Iran and Hezbollah in Syria.
The recent admission of General Wesley Clark, the supreme allied commander
Europe of NATO, from 1997 to 2000, that IS was created by the US’s allies in a
bid to counter the Lebanese movement of Hezbollah and Iran, quite clearly
suggests that Iran and Israel are the actual foes and the battleground is the
whole of the Persian Gulf and the Middle East. The other key players in the
region are allies of either Israel or Iran.

The writer is a freelance columnist, technologist and a passionate
speaker and writer. He tweets at @kashifaliraza and can be reached at
[email protected]

Ukraine, Russia and the west
Ukraine’s portrayal as a freedom loving country fighting for its
sovereignty is grossly exaggerated. It is an economic basket case





S P Seth
March 11, 2015
Be First To Comment

Let us face it. The continuing crisis in Ukraine has the potential of developing
into a major conflagration with disastrous consequences, notwithstanding the
recent peace deal. And this is because the parties to the conflict in Ukraine have
the direct or indirect support of some of the most powerful countries in the
world. The reference here is to the US/NATO/European bloc with all its economic
and military power. On the other side is Russia, though not with the same
economic prowess but determined to safeguard its strategic sphere against any

further encroachment close to its borders, perceived as a security threat. Not
long ago, President Vladimir Putin had warned the US-led western bloc not to
mess with Russia with its nuclear arsenal.
After the Soviet Union’s collapse, NATO (and the EU) have expanded to include
the Baltic states, once part of the Soviet Union, and its former defence partners
in the Warsaw Pact, like Poland. These relatively new NATO members
simultaneously feel secure (under NATO) and insecure that it might invite a
Russian counter-response at some indeterminate time. To insure against their
perpetual sense of insecurity they seek even greater NATO security
commitments. Some of them, like Poland and the Czech republic, want US
missile and radar facilities on their sites to ensure that Washington is tightly
involved in their defence. NATO is now putting together a rapid reaction force,
initially of 5,000 personnel that might be expanded later, to assure NATO
members bordering Russia that they will be protected.
Both Russia and NATO/EU have their own narratives about the Ukrainian crisis.
Moscow believes that the then democratically elected President Viktor
Yanukovych was overthrown in a coup stage-managed by the US, pointing
specifically to the presence of CIA Chief John Brennan in Kiev. The alternative
regime in Ukraine that followed was very keen on integrating with the EU and,
over time, on joining NATO. In the process, the resulting political polarisation
between the Russian-speaking people in eastern Ukraine, keen to maintain close
ties with Russia, and the Kiev regime made any political resolution difficult, with
Moscow prepared to support eastern rebels politically and with weapons, though
it denies the latter. The ongoing civil war has cost more than 6,000 lives with
some of the major eastern centres looking like ghost towns and both the Kiev
regime and pro-Russian separatists targeting civilians.
On the other hand, the western narrative focuses largely on Russia’s role in
fostering, fomenting and aiding, including with arms and personnel, Ukrainian
separatism and an attack on its sovereignty and territorial integrity. Indeed,
Russia at times is accused of committing aggression against Ukraine and
indirectly against Europe. George Soros, a prominent US public intellectual and
a well-known hedge fund manager, writes in a recent issue of the New York
Review of Books: “Europe needs to wake up and recognise that it is under
attack from Russia” and urges the provision of financial and military aid for the
Kiev regime.

The US has recently indicated that it is considering military aid for Ukraine to
fight the separatists but it has not yet found support among prominent
European countries like Germany and France. Germany’s Chancellor Angela
Merkel believes that it will only complicate and worsen the situation. Therefore,
so far, the western bloc is following a policy amounting basically to an economic
blockade of Russia. President Obama is threatening more sanctions unless
Russia backs off. The recent diplomatic initiative by Chancellor Angela Merkel
and President Francois Hollande of France has led to a broad peace agreement
for Ukraine. Announcing the new peace plan, hammered out between the
leaders of Germany, France, Russia and Ukraine in Minsk, Belarus, Putin said,
“We have agreed on a ceasefire from midnight February 15.” He added, “There
is also the political settlement. The first thing is constitutional reform that
should take into consideration the legitimate rights of people who live in
Donbass (eastern Ukraine). There are also border issues. Finally, there is a
whole range of economic and humanitarian issues.”
A good look at Putin’s summation of the agreement would suggest that it is
more like a catalogue of unsolved issues that lie at the heart of the Ukrainian
crisis, without laying down a detailed pathway to peace. Unless there is a
concrete blueprint to tackle the underlying issues in an orderly and time-bound
framework, the new agreement is likely to go the way of the first Minsk peace
plan. The previous ceasefire negotiated in September, also in Minsk, collapsed
almost immediately after the deal. Since then, the Ukrainian separatists have
advanced their positions to consolidate their hold on some of the important
transport hubs. As for constitutional reform to grant autonomy to eastern
Ukraine, Kiev’s understanding of it is to somehow fudge the issue while the
rebels settle for nothing less than a virtual, independent state aligned with
Russia, basically an extended Russian zone of influence.
While the new peace plan is a helpful development if it holds, the chances of its
going much further are rather dubious. In that case, it would lead to even more
western sanctions against Russia. As it is Russia’s economy is hurting from both
western sanctions and the plunge in global oil prices, an important revenue
source for the country. With its foreign exchange reserves depleting, Russia is
going to face some serious economic problems that might create difficult
political issues for the regime. The Putin regime is going to frame this crisis —
as it is already doing — as a western threat to its security and rally people
around a patriotic cause. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, also blamed on
the west, this new threat to Russia’s security might rally many patriotic
Russians behind the regime, at least in the short term.

Putin has indicated that there will be economic difficulties for about two years.
He obviously hopes that Russians can weather this crisis for that period. There
is some basis for this. First, Ukraine’s portrayal as a freedom loving country
fighting for its sovereignty is grossly exaggerated. It is an economic basket
case, corruption-ridden and a good chunk of the governing coalition has a
fascist background. Even with all the money thrown at it by western institutions,
it is unlikely to become economically functional. As George Soros, who is a
great proponent of economic sanctions against Russia and military and
economic aid to Ukraine has pointed out, “A Russian default (resulting from
western sanctions) could cause considerable disruption in the global financial
system with the euro area being particularly vulnerable.” He adds, “Russia is in
the midst of a financial crisis, which is helping to turn the threat of deflation in
the Eurozone into a reality.”
In other words, sanctions are not just hurting Russia but also Europe, though
not as severely. And, above all, if the Ukrainian crisis escalates, despite the
recent peace proposals, it has the great potential of developing into some sort
of military confrontation between Russia and the west with Ukraine as its
epicentre. It is, therefore, imperative for cool heads on both sides to deescalate the situation by taking into account Russia’s strategic concerns as part
of a wider settlement.

The writer is a senior journalist and academic based in Sydney,
Australia. He can be reached at [email protected]

CHINA-INDIA TIES AT WHAT EXPENSE?
Kuldip Nayar
Wednesday, March 11, 2015 - FULL marks to the arrogance of China! It summons the Indian envoy
at Beijing and conveys its displeasure over the visit of Prime Minister Narendra Modi to Arunachal
Pradesh. The territory is part of India and was never claimed by China till some years ago when it
attained the military prowess worth the name. Beijing told our ambassador Ashok Kantha that Modi’s
visit “undermined China’s territorial sovereignty right and interests.” Not long ago, Beijing had begun
stapling visas of the people of Arunachal visiting China to indicate that it was a “different” territory as
if it was not part of India.
New Delhi has borne the humiliation quietly then and has done it so now after the Indian

Prime Minister has visited part of his own country. This is, however, the first time that Beijing has
publicly expressed its unhappiness. It has in the past accepted without demur the maps showing
Arunachal Pradesh as India’s territory. So far the dispute has been over a small territorybetween
Arunachal and the China border. The status of Arunachal has been seldom questioned. Again it is a
part of arrogance when the important message is conveyed through Chinese viceForeign Minister Liu Zhenmin, who says: “Modi’s visit undermined China’s territorial
sovereignty, right and interests. Such act by the Indian side artificially amplified differences between
the two countries on the border issue and thus went against the principles and consensus that the
two sides reached on properly addressing the issue.”
Thus far New Delhi has stood firm to the appreciation of the country. It has rightly gone to the extent
of saying that the PrimeMinister would be visiting Arunachal again. The message would have gone
home clearly if New Delhi had announced the date also. True, the Prime Minister’s engagements
have to be scheduled beforehand. But a departure could have been made in view of the importance
of the problem. The message would have been loud and clear. In fact, the BJP, if not
the government, should have inspired a debate whether the Prime Minister should visit China in May,
as scheduled, to convey nation’s annoyance as well as concern. That India cannot be taken for
granted is something China should be made to realize.
Probably, New Delhi does not face the rumpus it would cause if the PM’s visit is postponed, if not
cancelled. But China has given enough of provocation to make India reconsider the visit. China’s
arrogance should not go without being rebutted. Matters about the territory relate to India’s
sovereignty as they should not be taken lightly. Prime Minister Modi should find an early opportunity
to tell China that the territorial integrity was not dependent on relations between New Delhi and
Beijing. In fact, it is the other way round. The future of Sino-India relations would improve if there
was a consensus on each other’s sensitivity over the territorial sovereignty. China is in occupation of
a substantial part of Indian Territory in the northeast.
New Delhi’s suspicion of China’s aggrandizement was well founded because India has been prey to
the betrayal of trust. In a letter to state chief ministers, India’s first Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru
said: “If we cannot have a real peace and cooperation between nations in the world, the next big
thing is to try and avoid the outbreak of war on a large scale in the hope that this may give the
world an opportunity some time later of arriving at peaceful settlements. “If however war broke out,
then we shall keep out of it also. It will be some gain if a part of the earth’s surface is kept out of this
terrific conflict between giants. This is the reason why we have refused to align ourselves with either
of the two great power blocks and why we are not agreeable to joining either the Middle East
Defence Organisation or the South East Asia one…We live now onwards in a war atmosphere and
wish all energies of many nations turned towards war production.”
Still Nehru was one person who at that time could avert the conflict and he did. Modi does not enjoy
the same status in the world, nor has he the vision. Yet he is in a position to stall, with the help of the
newly-won friend, President Barrack Obama. The ambition of Beijing to dominate the world affairs is
nothing new. It has always wanted to be a Sultan and treat the worldas its durbar. I recall how angry
were the former army generals at Beijing where I touched upon at a meeting that China was still in
control of India’s territory. Their reply was hawkish when they said: “You have forgotten the lesson
we taught you in 1962.” Nehru was wrong in recognizing Tibet as part of China. By doing so, he
probably thought that he would strengthen his relations with Beijing. But its then Prime Minister,
Chou En-Lai, was only exploiting Nehru’s contacts to be known in the world. Once his purpose was
served, Chou En-Lai showed his real face when he attacked India in 1962. By all means we should

have good relations with China but not at expense of our territory. What purpose would Modi’s visit
serve when Beijing is not willing to recognize Arunachal Pradesh as part of our territory? It is still not
too late to make China realize that it cannot get away with the insult it heaps on India by not
recognizing Arunachal Pradesh as an integral part of our country.
Relations between India and China are important for peace in the region. But China has to be as
much sincere as India has been. But one gets a feeling that Beijing wants to talk from the point of
strength and can see its efforts to encircle India. It has given a generous assistance to Nepal and is
in the process of setting up a port at Sri Lanka. Beijing is also trying to win over Myanmar. India
would be the last country to object to good relations with its neighbours. But if the intention is to use
them as a lever to pressure New Delhi, it smacks of ulterior motive. This does not speak
of friendship, which India wants to cultivate.
—The writer is a veteran Indian journalist, syndicated columnist, human rights activist and author.

INDIA’S SQUEEZE PAKISTAN STRATEGY
Iqbal Khan
Wednesday, March 11, 2015 - ADVISER to Prime Minister on National Security and Foreign
Affairs Sartaj Aziz has said that Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi will ‘certainly visit’ Pakistan
next year. “We are fully hopeful that the Indian primeminister will come to Pakistan for the SAARC
summit”. He added that though there was no breakthrough during Indian Foreign Secretary S
Jaishankar’s recent visit, there was headway for the next meeting between the two foreign
secretaries and the duo could meet again. Pakistan wants to resolve all outstanding issues with
India, including Kashmir, through dialogue. There is need for comprehensive dialogue process
between the two countries to address all outstanding issues. Lack of trust between the two countries
is a major issue and there is not likely to be any worthwhile progress on other issues unless the trust
is gradually restored.
The menace of terrorism is a known problem that affects most of the countries of the world, including
this region. Pakistan also has its concerns on this issue, these were elaborately articulated during
the talks, especially the persistent Indian involvement that ferments terrorism in Pakistan, more so in
FATA and Balochistan. While India talked about trial of those allegedly involved in Mumbai attacks,
Pakistan reminded India that investigations about bombing of Samjhota express that took
place much earlier than Mumbai attacks has not ended-up anywhere close to conclusion and that
those who have made self-incriminating confessions are out on bail. Pakistan has suffered the most
because of terrorism; and has done more than any other country to counter terrorism. Pakistan
expects similar approach from other countries. As regards blaming Pakistan, it is not a good
approach to blame every terrorist attack on Pakistan right on the onset of the event. Pakistan
expects that thorough investigations should be conducted before any finger pointing. Blowing off of a
smugglers’ boat by Indian coast guards in December 2014 is the latest example the way India jumps
the gun.
Another important issue between the two countries is right of self-determination by the people of
Jammu and Kashmir, who are larger in number than 123 currently independent nations and have a
defined historical identity. They are, at present, engaged in a massive, indigenous and non violent

struggle to win their freedom from the foreign occupation of their land. Relevance of the principle of
self-determination to the specific case of Jammu and Kashmir has been, time and again, recognized
by the United Nations. It was upheld equally by India and Pakistan when the Kashmir dispute was
brought before the UN Security Council by India. The two countries entered into an agreement to
allow the people of Jammu and Kashmir to exercise their right of self-determination under impartial
auspices and in conditions free from coercion from either side.
Envoys from India and Pakistan agreed to “narrow differences” and find common ground, both
Jaishankar and, Aizaz Chaudhry, stressed the need to work together; but there was no decision on
whether the meeting would result in future negotiations. Indian Foreign Secretary’s two-day visit
marked the first high-level meeting between India and Pakistan since talks were disrupted by India
last year. “We engaged on each other’s concerns and interests in an open manner. We agreed to
work together to find common ground and narrow differences,” Jaishankar said. “The overall tone of
meeting was positive…We need to make a concerted effort to resolve this dispute,” he said.
Jaishankar said that Pakistan will be the next Chairman of the SAARC and India wants to see the
forum as successful. He also met Pakistani Prime Minister and delivered a letter from Prime Minster
Narendra Modi; both sides were tight-lipped about the contents of Modi’s letter, sources said it
focused on the need to rebuild peaceful, friendly ties between the two nations by removing trust
deficit. Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif said in a statement that both countries need to start a new
chapter in their relationship. The visit of the senior Indian diplomat is seen in Pakistan as a move to
revive the stalled “Composite Dialogue” process between the two neighbours. India is also hoping to
revive regular contacts between the border security forces on both sides to ensure peace on the
border. A BSF-Pak Rangers consultation mechanism may be restarted, as well as other
conversations. “We agreed that ensuring peace and tranquillity on the border was vital,” Jaishankar
said. “Pakistan also sought to keep the focus on Kashmir in the talks.”
India wants to replicate the China border template with Pakistan. That is, intensify interactions
between security forces and even DGMOs that would bring in a more peaceful border. The firing on
the border, the Indian government has concluded, is proving to be a big hindrance to normalizing
bilateral ties, and that 2003 ceasefire arrangement has been one of the biggest confidence
building measures in operation. This ceasefire has unravelled since early 2013 with regular
provocative firing by India, extending from the LOC to the international boundary. One of the first
things that India wants to restore could be cross-LOC CBMs and agree to opening up more roads
like the Kargil-Skardu, more border trade and more popular contacts. With a BJP-PDP government
in operation in Jammu & Kashmir, there is greater incentive for India now to quieten the border.
A second message Jaishankar took with him to Pakistan concerned SAARC, which is a personal
imperative of the Modi. “I conveyed the expectations of our leadership on SAARC and their
determination to forge a cooperative relationship with all our neighbours. We discussed ideas and
initiatives to take SAARC forward. Pakistan will be the next SAARC Chair and India would like to
work with Pakistan to help SAARC achieve its potential.” India has conveyed to Pakistan that
connectivity and trade would be implemented in the SAARC region, even if Pakistan chose to stay
away. India is pushing the Bangladesh-Bhutan-India-Nepal (BBIN) sub-grouping to clear hurdles to
connectivity between these four countries to pressurise Pakistan. Modi will make the pledges during
a visit to Sri Lanka, Mauritius and Seychelles. New Delhi is hoping to tie the islands into a closer
security embrace. “India has a role as a net security provider in the Indian Ocean region,” said a
defenceofficial involved in preparations for Modi’s trip.

Modi is well on its way for implementing two-pronged strategy to squeeze Pakistan. He wants to
bypass Pakistan within SAARC and create conditions that Pakistan softens its stance on core issues
like Kashmir and provision of trade openings to India towards West and Central Asia without any
reciprocal concessions.
—The writer is consultant to IPRI on Policy and Strategic Response.
Opinion
Khilafah

Dr Javed Ahmad Ghamidi
Wednesday, March 11, 2015
From Print Edition

21

14

4

1

It is an undeniable fact that for the past many centuries, the word khilafah is being used.
However, it is certainly not a religious term. Religious terms cannot be coined by scholars like Razi,
Ghazali, Mawardi, Ibn Haazm and Ibn Khuldun. Similarly, not every word that Mulims start using in a
particular sense becomes a religious term.
On the contrary, religious terms can only be coined by God and His messengers, and are acceptable
only when their meaning as a term is validated from the Quran and Hadith or other divine scriptures.
Words such as sawm, salah, hajj and umrah etc are regarded as religions terms because God and His
messengers have accorded them this status, and have used them at various instances as terms. On
the other hand, the word khilafah is of the Arabic language and means ‘vicegerency’, ‘succession’, and
‘political authority’, It is used as a common Arabic word in one of these meanings at all places in the
Quran and Hadith. It may be noted that certain verses of the Quran have generally been cited to
convince people that they are used as terms.
In all such verses, people have not translated the words khilafah in the translation of the verses and
have kept them intact in their original Arabic form. By doing this they want to give the impression that
these words have been used as terms. If all these verses are looked up in any authentic translation,
one will be at a loss to understand how this inference was made, just as one of my critics seems to be
at a loss at the inferences made by me.
Presented below are the translations of two very competent scholars:
Verse 40 of Surah Baqarah: 1.
And when your Lord said to the angels: “I have to make a naib (deputy) in the earth.” (Shah ‘Abd alQadir)
And when your Lord told the angels: “I will make a naib (deputy) in the earth.” (Mahmud al-Hasan)
2. Verse 26 of Surah Suad:

O David! We have made you a naib (deputy) in the country; so govern people with justice. (Shah ‘Abd
al-Qadir)
O David! We have made you a naib (deputy) in the country; so govern people with justice. (Mahmud
al-Hasan)
3. Verse 55 of Surah Nur:
God has promised that those among you who have accepted faith and have done righteous deeds, in
fact He will in the coming times make them hakim (rulers) in the country the way He made hakim
(rulers) those prior to them. (Shah ‘Abd al-Qadir)
God has promised those among you who have accepted faith and have done righteous deeds, in fact
He will in the coming times make them hakim in the country the way He made rulers those prior to
them. (Mahmud al-Hasan)
The words naib and hakim used in these verses are translation of the Arabic words khalifah and
istikhlaf, and it is quite evident that they do not have any religious connotation in them except if a
person claims that every word used in the Quran becomes a religious term.
Similar is the case with the Ahadith and Athar. The word khalifah and all its derivatives are used in
them in the same meanings as the ones stated earlier. So much so that in one Hadith, the word
khalifah is used for God Himself in the meaning of ‘successor’. It is for this very reason that when
meanings such as ‘rightly guided government’ or ‘government in accordance with the way of
Prophethood’ need to be expressed, then words such as rashidah and ‘ala minhaj al-nubuwwah have
to be appended with the word khilafah. By regarding such appended words to be understood with the
word khilafah, our scholars have made khilafah a term.
As such, it is a term of political science and sociology of the Muslims just as the words fiqh, kalam,
hadith etc have become terms – but it cannot be regarded as a religious term. No one except God and
His Messenger has the authority to coin a religious term. This is solely their prerogative. If some word
is regarded as a religious term, then it has to be deduced from the words of these two authorities. It
cannot be adduced from works like the Muqaddimah of Ibn Khaldun.
As far as the view that according to Islam there should be only one global government in the world is
concerned, it is evident to every person of learning that the Quran is absolutely devoid of any such
directive. Two Ahadith are, however, cited in favour of this view. One of them is: God’s Messenger
(sws) is reported to have said that prophets ruled the Israelites; so, when one of them passed away,
another would take his place; but there is no prophet after me; however, there will be rulers and they
will be plenty. It was asked: “What is your directive about them O Prophet!” He replied: “Fulfil your
oath of allegiance with the first one and then with the one who is the first after him,” (Bukhari no.
3455; Muslim, no. 1842).
The second Hadith is: “When the oath of allegiance is pledged to two rulers, kill the second one”
(Muslim, no. 1853). Though this second narrative is not sound as far as its chain of narration is
concerned, yet even if it is regarded to be correct, it is an incontestable reality that none of these
Ahadith state in any sense what has been derived from them. What is said in these narratives is that if
Muslims pledge their oath of allegiance to a ruler and then another person rebels against him and
invites people to pledge allegiance to him, then each Muslim should adhere to his first oath of
allegiance. Moreover, if the second person claims to be their ruler and some people even pledge their
oath of allegiance to him, then he should be executed.
Such is the nature of these directives that their cogency can be made evident to every person. Thus,
after the demise of the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) when a member of the Ansar tribe suggested that
a ruler each from the Ansar and the Muhajirun should be appointed, ‘Umar (RA) on this very principle
opined that two swords cannot exist in one sheathe, and Aba Bakr (RA) also cautioned people at this
instance that a state can only have one ruler. This is because such an arrangement will result in severe
differences, disorder instead of order will arise and the discipline of the state will be ruined, and
instead of [following] the way on which the Prophet (pbuh) left his people this religious innovation that

one state will be governed by two rulers will emerge. (Al-Bayhaqi, Al-Sunan al-kubra, no. 16549,
16550)
If the ascription of these Ahadith to the Prophet (pbuh) is correct, then they imply what has been
explained above. No logic can adduce from them that Islam has directed its followers to set up a
single government in the whole world. Similarly, no reasoning can deduce from these narratives that if
the adherents of Islam are able to convert the majority of people of other countries to Islam, they
cannot set up their own government and if they do so, as in the case of today’s fifty-odd Muslims
countries, they will be regarded as sinners.
Scholars of Islam must bear in mind that the precepts of God’s religion must remain pure and
unaltered. No scholar, jurist or Hadith doctor has the authority to make people liable for a directive for
which the Almighty has not made them liable. Hence I have written and would like to repeat that the
establishment of United States of Islam based on the union of countries in which Muslims are in
majority can be the desire of every person and we can also strive to fulfil this desire, but there is no
basis that such a union is a directive of the Islamic Shariah, defying which Muslims would be
committing a sin.
The writer is a theologian, scholar and educationist.

NUST among top 100 universities in BRICS & Emerging Economies: survey
AHSAN RAZA — UPDATED 10 minutes ago
0 COMMENTS
EMAIL
PRINT

The only Pakistani university featured on the list is Islamabad's National University of
Science and Technology (NUST), which appeared on the BRICS & Emerging Economies
Rankings 2015. — Courtesy NUST website

Islamabad's National University of Science and Technology (NUST) has been listed among the top 100
universities in the BRICS & Emerging Economies Rankings 2015, published by The Times Higher Education
(THE).
THE, a leading UK-based magazine, published the 2015 THE World Reputation Rankings – the leading list of
the world’s 100 most prestigious universities, based on the largest invitation-only survey of senior academics
across the world.
The list includes the top 100 universities of the world, 100 Asian universitiesand 100 universities from the
BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa) and emerging economies.
Read: NUST unveils Pakistan’s fastest super computer
NUST is the only Pakistani university featured in the latest rankings.
Harvard University retained first place on the list of the world’s most prestigious universities while Japan leads
Asia in the global reputation league, but the University of Tokyo falls still further from the top ten.

There is outstanding progress for China’s leading universities – with Tsinghua and Peking securing their
highest ever positions – but Hong Kong lost ground.
The UK’s Cambridge University (2nd) and Oxford (3rd) push the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT)
(4th) and Stanford University (5th) down.
The Times Higher Education World University Rankings 2014-2015 list the best global universities. The
magazine says these are the only international university performance tables to judge world-class universities
across all of their core missions - teaching, research, knowledge transfer and international outlook.
The top universities rankings employ 13 carefully calibrated performance indicators to provide the most
comprehensive and balanced comparisons available, which are trusted by students, academics, university
leaders, industry and governments.
Among the 100 top ranking universities, India, Iran, China and Saudi Arabia have their share.

Where do Pakistani universities stand among the world institutions?
Phil Baty, editor of Times Higher Education Rankings, answers: “I can reveal that several Pakistani
universities were named as being among the best by our survey respondents, including University of Karachi,
University of Punjab and Quaid-I-Azam,” said Phil Baty in an email interview to Dawn.com.
“However, none of them received enough nominations to make the highly prestigious top 100 group – which
represents no more than about 0.5 per cent of the world’s higher education institutions.”
The magazine only releases the top 100 universities on this particular ranking – as it judges universities based
entirely on how they are perceived and respected by 10,000 senior scholars from around the world and the data
differentials become very slight deeper down the list.

As most of the universities are ranked on their perceived reputation, what should
Pakistani universities do?
When asked if interaction with international universities and siging MoU would help, Phil Baty said: “As long
as the MoU documents translate into real action – genuine research partnerships and exchanges of faculty and
of ideas – they should really help Pakistan. Not only do such international collaborations help to ensure that
academics learn from one another and share best practices from across the globe, which drives up standards,
they also ensure that the important work being done by Pakistani universities will be better understood by
international scholars, and better recognised. Too often, however, MoU’s are signed and they sit in a filing
cabinet without being acted upon. True global partnerships and collaborations are highly effective and good for
the whole of higher education.”

How can Pakistani universities improve their rankings?
“This study is based entirely on a survey of academic opinion, where leading scholars around the world name
which institutions are strongest in teaching and research. There is no way of knowing why these academics are
not nominating Pakistani institutions enough."

"However, many of the institutions which do not feature in the World Reputation Rankings also receive poor
scores for international outlook in the Times Higher Education’s main World University Rankings, published
in October (which are based on 13 performance criteria). This means that they are not attracting enough
international students or staff, collaborating with overseas universities enough, or publishing enough research
papers in English – the global language."
“All of these factors can influence a university’s reputation, so it is likely that by improving their international
outlook Pakistani institutions can not only improve through sharing best practice globally and drawing on the
global talent pool, they can also improve how they are perceived by the global academic community, as they
will be much better placed to property demonstrate to the world their particular strengths. Ultimately the only
way to improve in the world reputation rankings is to ensure that scholars across the world recognise you as an
excellent teaching and research institution.”
As higher education is a serious business, universities do a lot of work to improve and retain their reputation
and of course work.
For the fifth year in a row, the 2015 rankings have highlighted an elite group of six US and UK “super-brands”
that stands head and shoulders above the rest, headed by Harvard University. Cambridge University moves into
second place this year (up from 4th), Oxford University takes third (up from 5th), while the Massachusetts
Institute of Technology drops to fourth (from second) and Stanford University takes 5th (from 3rd). The
University of California, Berkeley, holds onto 6th place.
Overall, the US continues to dominate, with 26 of the top 50 places, and a total of 43 of the top 100 (down
from 46 last year). After the US, the UK has the most top 100 representatives: 12, up from ten last year and
nine in 2013.
In the Asia-Pacific region, Australia gained ground. Its leader, the University of Melbourne, host of the THE
World Academic Summit in October 2015, moved up from 43rd to joint 41st. Both the University of Sydney
and Australian National University moved up from the 61-70 band to the 51-60 group.
Asia’s number one performer is the University of Tokyo, slipping one place to 12th in the world. But it was a
bad result overall for Japan, as Kyoto University slipped out of the top 20, from 19th to 27th, and Osaka
University fell out of the table altogether.
The World Reputation Rankings are part of the portfolio of league tables that has established Times Higher
Education as the most respected provider of comparative global higher education performance data.
They are based on a global invitation-only opinion poll carried out in partnership with Elsevier.
The poll has attracted almost 70,000 responses from more than 150 countries in five
annual rounds since the first survey in 2010. The 2015 results were drawn from 10,507
survey responses from published senior academics Policy towards India
ASHRAF JEHANGIR QAZI — PUBLISHED a day ago
54 COMMENTS
EMAIL

PRINT

The writer is a former ambassador to the US, India and China and head of UN missions in
Iraq and Sudan.

MY previous article was about the importance of India in the context of our obligations towards our own
people. This offers brief comments and perspectives on specific concerns. For so-called ‘leaders’ they will be
water off a duck’s back! They are, accordingly, addressed to fellow Pakistanis concerned about our country’s
future.
The Indian foreign secretary has come and gone. Pakistan will host the Saarc summit in 2016. Modi may
attend or even visit before it. That could provide an opportunity for a joint statement of intent to progressively
resolve core issues and draw up a road map for better and more substantive relations. Intense joint preparations
will be crucial.
This will not be easy. There is zero mutual trust and even less political will. India does not feel the need to
accommodate Pakistan. There is no domestic constituency for it. India sees itself as too strong for a weak and
isolated Pakistan to do it any real harm. This perceived Indian ‘arrogance and inflexibility’ undermines the
‘liberal’ argument in Pakistan that it needs to develop a stable relationship with India in its own interest.
India and Pakistan have immediate concerns. India cites the infrastructure of terrorism in Pakistan that targets
it; the reluctance of Pakistan to effectively prosecute or hand over suspects in the 2008 Mumbai atrocities; and
alleged infiltration of militants across the LoC.

Pakistan refers to the political and human rights situation in Occupied Kashmir; the Indian refusal to negotiate
a settlement of the dispute; the disproportionate Indian use of heavy artillery across the LoC and Working
Boundary; and Indian political interference in Balochistan, Fata etc.
There are, of course, other important issues on the suspended ‘composite’ agenda. But if there is sustained
movement on immediate concerns, movement on other issues becomes easier. However, attitudes and
structural obstacles cannot be transcended at the bureaucratic level. Only the political leadership can enable
negotiated progress on issues and their sustained implementation on the ground.
Pakistan and India cannot develop mutual cordiality overnight. But they should jointly acknowledge that in the
21st century they must jointly work towards it. Addressing each other’s core concerns must become a priority
for both countries. This will require a shared and realistic vision to guide the policies of both countries towards
each other.
Implementing confidence- and security-building measures; increasing economic cooperation, investment and
trade; avoiding interference and conflict and strengthening procedures for this purpose; and reducing mutually
hostile perceptions should become the focus of the bilateral relationship. This could set the scene for more
critical progress that seems out of reach today.

Only the political leadership can enable negotiated progress on issues and their
implementation.

All this is known. But it is never implemented. The blame game is easier. Zero-sum games thrive. Leadership
absconds. Vested interests prevail. Public opinion is fed on negative assumptions and kept ignorant of
imperatives and possibilities. Out-of-the-box or back-channel solutions are suffocated at birth. India misses
opportunities. Pakistan pays the costs.
Skipping details, the following are observations on issues of concern:
Kashmir: Pakistan has the better case. But it has isolated itself internationally. Pakistan’s errors have obscured
the centrality of Kashmiri human and political rights. Only a mutually acceptable settlement on the basis of
these rights is feasible. The PDP-BJP alliance is not necessarily a negative development. The PDP has
underlined the continuing relevance of Pakistan and the APHC. Modi has had to retreat on Article 370. In
addition to UN resolutions, Pakistan’s position should also emphasise Article 257 of its Constitution. This
could ensure harmony between Kashmiri and Pakistani positions in the event of talks with India for a
compromise settlement. We need to seriously study the potential of the understandings reached in the backchannel talks of 2005-6.
Terrorism: The Pakistan defence minister’s statement on behalf of the Haqqani network and the Quetta Shura
(the existence of which we have denied) in the context of an Afghan settlement is at odds with our statements
after the Peshawar attack on the Army Public School. The foreign minister also spoke of militant organisations
that had not targeted Pakistan. Are distinctions between ‘good’ and ‘bad’ militant violence being revived?
Pakistan looks confused, fearful and unreliable. Zarb-i-Azb risks being compromised. Our credibility suffers.

Mumbai: That was seven years ago, move on! This will not convince India or the international community.
However, the domestic costs of bringing possible culprits to justice are considered too high. Once again our
credibility suffers which is far more costly. Moreover, reports that suspects like Lakhvi are “living it up” in jail
further damage Pakistan’s credibility. We seem to be our own worst enemy. The implicit argument is that those
who may have been involved are too powerful to touch, and India should understand this! Well, it does.
Accordingly, it sticks to maximalist positions which rule out compromise and progress.
LoC: The Indians misread the Shimla Agreement when they say it replaces UN resolutions on Kashmir. But it
does require neither side to unilaterally change the situation on the ground. India violated Shimla on Siachen in
1984, and in 1999 we did the same in Kargil. We should both respect the 2003 LoC cease-fire agreement.
Infiltration may ‘keep the pot boiling’ in India-held Kashmir and ‘lock up’ Indian forces. But it neither
contributes towards a Kashmir settlement nor does it alleviate the human rights disaster for the Kashmiris. It
also undermines Pakistan’s credibility in the so-called ‘war on terror’.
Balochistan: India denies allegations of its interference. Pakistan has not produced sufficient evidence in
support of its charges. Nevertheless, India is probably involved in retaliation for its perception of Pakistani
‘interference’ in India-held Kashmir and India itself. The solution in Balochistan is fair and inclusive
development and governance. That would reduce political alienation. This, of course, is studiously ignored.
Conclusion: India’s actions and policies, however provocative, should not lead us into irrational, irresponsible
and inefficient responses. That might satisfy vested interests and raw emotion. But Pakistan loses every time.
The record shows it. Even nuclear weapons cannot compensate for immature, stupid and self-serving
leadership.
The writer is a former ambassador to the US, India and China and head of UN missions in Iraq and Sudan.
who reported an average of 15 years working in higher education.

ntegrity and Spine Act, 2015
BABAR SATTAR — PUBLISHED 2 days ago
20 COMMENTS
EMAIL
PRINT

The writer is a lawyer.

WERE our Senate elections an utter disgrace because the Election Commission didn’t function as a stricter
schoolmaster? Should it have placed metallic chips in ballot papers and made MPs walk-thorough scanners to
ensure that they didn’t sneak their votes out for loyalty verification? Should there be a law that says that
midnight laws and orders will be considered a breach of the law itself? Should our Constitution address
minutest details such as ungodly hours when laws must not be passed?
Laws exist to guide conduct within a society. They are published and are generally prospective in nature so that
people know what the law is and can order their lives accordingly. But what if people don’t feel obliged to
follow the law or think of it merely as a device to control others? Can you ensure by writing effective laws that
public office holders will be men and women of integrity and decency? Can you think up a magical
constitutional amendment that will force public fiduciaries and representatives to do the right thing?
After our accountability and anti-corruption laws, sadiq and ameen qualifications in our Constitution, the
never-ending debates about credentials of gatekeepers of the democratic project (election commissioners,
judges etc.), can we, as a last resort, also draft a Mandatory Spine Act and a Prohibition Against Doing the
Wrong Thing Act? And once those too fail to cure our greed and predatory and boorish instincts, we can
initiate a debate about why our society is failing to produce decent people.

The law is merely a tool. We can quarrel with it, but that won’t make us good
workmen.

The law is merely a tool. We can quarrel with it, but that won’t make us good workmen. In order for the law to
be effective it must be considered normative ie people must view it as a compelling reason to act in a certain
way. In a rule-of-law society you can be critical of the utility of a red light. But you must still stop when the
light is red. And if you break the light (even in an emergency to rush to hospital etc) and are fined, you must be
willing to pay such fine as legitimate sanction.
But what if most road users don’t think stopping on a red light is necessary, even though they know the law
requires them to do so? You can ask traffic wardens to enforce the red light. What if wardens too think that
breaking a signal is no life-shattering event and selectively enforce the rule depending on whether the rule
breaker is weak or powerful? What if those who stop at red lights out of habit or fear of challan also reconcile
with others who don’t and also with the unfair wardens? How do you then write a law that makes red lights
meaningful?
We speak of rule-of-law societies (and not states) and law-abiding citizens as rule of law, to be effective,
depends on a positive social attitude towards the law. Can the law be meaningful if a majority thinks abiding
by it is not necessary or that not abiding by it will bring no harm to them? Will the law be considered fair if it
is selectively enforced, or if there is a shared general assumption that the law is a tool for coercion and no
assumption of bona fide attaches to intentions of public representatives who frame and approve laws?
Are we a rule-of-law society and a democratic polity? Consider recent evidence. Last week the Supreme Court
held proceedings till late in the evening issuing sermons and threats to get the federal and provincial
governments to agree to a timetable for local bodies elections. It didn’t happen without the melodrama even
though Article 140A unambiguously requires provinces to establish local governments and “devolve political,
administrative and financial responsibility and authority to the elected representatives of the local
governments”.
The president issued a midnight order changing the manner in which Fata was to elect senators. If someone
had arbitrarily changed in the dark of the night the breakfast menu the Sharifs had agreed to an evening before,
there would probably be hangings inside Raiwind Palace. Does the PML-N really not know that issuing
midnight decrees (notwithstanding their content) to tailor election outcomes is no way to run a country? If all
power wielders are convinced that discretion must always be abused to promote self-interest, can black-letter
law still save us?
We have an entire chapter within the Constitution that discriminates against tribal areas denying them
democracy and rule of law: Article 247 ousts the jurisdiction of parliament and the provincial assemblies in
relation to the tribal areas, it denies tribal citizens the right to petition courts to enforce their fundamental
rights, and vests in the president and governors arbitrary authority to administer Fata that is routinely abused.
Do we not know that this is wrong? Can we deny people their rights and expect them to be loyal citizens?
Our democracy is supposed to function on a one-person-one-vote basis. It is on the basis of population
numbers that constituencies are delimited. It is on this basis that the National Finance Commission is to
distribute funds between the centre and provinces and seats in parliament are to be allocated to provinces. Our
Constitution promises mandatory education to our kids. Can such promise be given effect if we don’t know

how many kids there are and where they live? Do we not know that not holding a census it not just illegal but
also ridiculous?
If democracy limps on, the assemblies that have just elected senators in 2015 will also be the ones to elect
senators in 2018. In other words, votes cast by ordinary folk in May 2013 will continue to determine who sits
in the Senate up until 2024. Does this make any sense?
We need urgent electoral reform. We need empowered local bodies. We need a census. We need to end Fata’s
discriminatory status. We need to fix our broken justice system. We need to start enforcing our laws. Then we
need to start improving them. But first we need candid admission: the fault is not in our stars but in us.