Jul 29

PCB challenges

Posted on Saturday, July 29, 2017 in The Friday Times (Editorial)

PCB challenges

A host of TV naysayers had advised the Pakistan Cricket Board to book the return flight of the Pakistan cricket team immediately after it lost to India in the opening match of the Champions Trophy in England last June. One TV commentator, an ex-captain of Pakistan, was so disgusted that he demanded PCB be disbanded, its domestic and international tournaments be cancelled and its management, selectors and coaches all be sent packing. Two months later, however, the “nation” is still celebrating Pakistan’s heroic win over hot-favourite but arch-enemy India to grab the coveted Champions Trophy. How did this cricketing “revival” come about? What are the obstacles in its path?

The single most important development in Pakistan’s cricket history since winning the World Cup in 1992 has been the Pakistan Super League. For eight years, three PCB Chairmen tried to launch it and failed. Today it is a resounding success. It has revived PCB’s fortunes in three significant ways. First, it has dug up a wellspring of fresh talent that was on scintillating display recently. Second it has enabled our youngsters to rub shoulders with and play against the top international players of the world in a high-pressure environment, a learning experience of immense value. Third, the profits from PSL are poised to become a major independent source of PCB funding equivalent to nearly 50% of PCB revenues from the ICC, which means more funding for cricket development in the country. But PSL is already threatened on two counts.

For PSL to become a truly dynamic and self-sustaining force, it must be played in Pakistan. The UAE is a very expensive venue. Ticket sales are insignificant. Local sponsors non-existent. But periodic acts of terrorism at home make this a difficult objective. That is why the Final in Lahore last March was an extraordinary achievement. But the task ahead is daunting. Whenever a bomb goes off in Lahore or Karachi, PCB’s hard work in trying to convince international players and cricketing bodies that Pakistan is safe to play goes up in a pall of smoke.

PSL is also threatened by powerful vested interests. Disgruntled ex-employees of PCB and perennially blackmailing job seekers are constantly dragging the PCB to court on frivolous grounds. Currently, PSL faces “inquiries” in NAB and FIA sponsored by such complainants despite the fact of highly intensive and independent internal and external audit procedures. In fact, instead of protecting a valuable national asset, parliamentary sports watchdog committees are riven by party political differences which spill over into undue criticism of PCB which is a statutory body of the federal government. Now attempts are underway in the courts to destabilize PCB by challenging the constitutional transition to a new elected Board of Governors and Chairman of PCB for the next three years. If this is disrupted, we can say goodbye to PCB’s efforts to bring PSL and international cricket back to Pakistan and revive cricket in the country.

Pakistan cricket is also threatened by greed and corruption. The recent spot fixing in the PSL involving a clutch of players would have wrecked PSL if the evil hadn’t been nipped in the bud. Yet a section of the media and ex-cricketers’ establishment seem to display more sympathy for the crooks than for their prosecutors. This is remarkable in view of the constant refrain from much the same sort of critics that if the Justice Qayyum Report of a decade ago had been ruthlessly implemented by the PCB and the errant cricketers rooted out, this corrupt practice would never have reared its ugly head again. Indeed, the very success of PSL makes it a potential high value target for bookies which necessitates a zero-tolerance policy by the PCB based on strict and swift punishments. But instead of supporting PCB, sections of the media are hell-bent on thwarting its anti-corruption squad.

Negative Indo-Pak relations have also adversely impacted the PCB. The BCCI is refusing to honour an eight-year contract for six bilateral series which were expected to yield over Rs 150 billion to PCB. It says the Modi government has stopped it from playing Pakistan at home or abroad. But by dragging politics into cricket, the Modi government is doing a great disservice to a game beloved of billions. The money from these series with India is earmarked for the development of cricket academies and stadiums across Pakistan and its loss is a huge blow for the PCB which receives no funding from the government.

The challenges ahead for the PCB are formidable. A necessary condition is stability of the management that has produced a successful “Made in Pakistan” brand like PSL, which has cobbled a successful coaching and selection squad behind a resurgent, “new look and new feel” Pakistan team, which is attacking corruption, and which is reforming the domestic cricket structure. If we can ask BCCI to keep politics out of bilateral cricket, we should demand the same from vested political interests at home.

Jul 21

End the crisis

Posted on Friday, July 21, 2017 in The Friday Times (Editorial)

End the crisis

The moment of reckoning for Nawaz Sharif has come. The three judges of the Supreme Court bench have digested all the arguments and will now decide whether Nawaz Sharif is “sadiq and amin” for speaking the truth or lying about the sources of his wealth. If the bench believes he has lied, he will be disqualified from being a member of parliament and holding the office of prime minister. Moreover, the bench will decide whether the case merits being sent to an accountability court for further investigation and criminal prosecution of one or more members of the Sharif family, including Mr Sharif.

The Sharifs’ lawyers have punched holes in the JIT’s credentials and conclusions. But the bench has shrugged away the charge by saying it is not, in any case, bound by the JIT’s findings. Instead, the judges aver that the Sharifs haven’t answered relevant questions about the source of wealth that led to the purchase of the London flats many years after they were in possession of the property. The Sharifs’ lawyers ask how can Nawaz Sharif explain the money trail of a property he does not own in the first place. The opposition counters if that be the case why did Nawaz Sharif stand on the floor of Parliament and declare that he would answer all questions and provide all documents relating to the wealth of the Sharif family? Forget everything else, say the judges in frustration, just show us how the flats were legitimately bought and we will wrap up the case. The Sharifs argue that if the JIT had asked the Qatari prince to confirm his involvement in the matter as the primary source of funds for the flats, this question would have been answered satisfactorily. Why the JIT didn’t question the Qatari prince – who expressed a readiness to be examined — remains a mystery, and one that weakens the legal case against the Sharifs.

The case is both simple and complex. It is simple in the sense that if at least two of three judges on the bench hold the prime minister guilty of lying, then it is curtains for him. It is complicated in the sense that if two of the three judges hold him innocent and one holds him guilty, how will this bear on the status of the judgment, since two out of five judges of the original bench had already declared him guilty? Unfortunately, the judges have not clarified whether a majority of three will decide Mr Sharif’s fate or a majority of five.

There are other issues to address. If the SC is not a trial court, as per the constitution, how can it hold a trial of Mr Sharif or any member of the Sharif family for corruption? By this argument, if the SC thinks that there is, prima facie, a criminal case to be made out against one or more of the Sharifs, it must refer the matter of a proper trial to an accountability court. But on the other side of the coin is the fact that two out of five judges of the original bench have already declared Mr Sharif to be not “sadiq and amin” on the yardstick of Article 62/63 of the constitution and disqualified him from being a member of parliament. An additional complication has arisen because there is both a disqualification precedence – MNAs were disqualified directly by the SC because they could not verify the authenticity of their BA degrees – as well as a strong judgment by Justice Asif Khosa, one of the two judges who have disqualified Mr Sharif on the basis of 62/63, against clutching at Article 62/63 for disqualifying members of parliament because that will open a Pandora’s box of arbitrariness and uncertainty. Confusion and contradiction is further compounded by certain written and oral remarks of some judges that point to preconceived notions and prejudices against powerful and wealthy men (like Mr Sharif).

Parallel to the trail of Mr Nawaz Sharif in the SC, there is a case against Imran Khan in the SC that mirrors much the same sort of issues. The SC is asking him to show the money trail of his London flat, of his Bani Gala property and of his party funds from foreign sources. The problem is that Mr Khan is having as much difficulty convincing the judges investigating him as Mr Sharif. If the two groups of judges trying them base their judgments on two different sets of laws and legal precedents, then all hell will break loose. But if they concur, then the likelihood is that both Mr Khan and Mr Sharif will meet with the same “innocent” or “guilty” fate.

It would be good for the country if the coming judgments do not deepen the political crisis. But if they do, it will reinforce the old wisdom that judges may wade into raging political matters only at peril to the rule of law and constitution, to the institution of the judiciary and to their own personal selves.

Jul 14

Save the system!

Posted on Friday, July 14, 2017 in The Friday Times (Editorial)

Save the system!

In the considered opinion of the JIT, Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif and his family have amassed wealth beyond their declared sources of income; their defense is full of holes and lies; they are not good Muslims; they must be punished. Who can disagree with this assessment? We have a “system”. Surely it should prevail over an errant Prime Minister.

Never mind that the JIT report is full of gaping holes and overt bias. Never mind that the honourable judges sitting in judgement are not accountable. Never mind that the deep state conducting the investigations is not accountable. Never mind that the men of “piety” with flowing beards and the shrill media baying for blood are not accountable. Never mind the number of times we have heard this argument before to get rid of every elected prime minister since independence (twenty so far and still counting) before he or she can complete a full term without the “system” ever being held accountable. Never mind that the amassed wealth of all these pillars of the state — including gifts and donations from foreign ruling families — is beyond their declared sources of income.

In this wonderful “system” that must prevail over all else, the judges who enshrined the “law of necessity” legitimizing three martial laws, or the judges who sent a popular prime minister to the gallows and many others home, are not accountable. In this wonderful system that must prevail over everything else, the generals who ruled the country directly for over half its life since independence and lost half of it in the bargain, or routinely rigged key political parties and elections, are not accountable. The most incredible thing is that this wonderful system is self-perpetuating and there is not an iota of evidence that corruption is decreasing even fractionally as a result of its oversight. Even more incredible is the fact that “corruption” is such a “big” issue in the imagination of this powerful system that the wretched people of Pakistan have doggedly elected corrupt politicians to represent them in parliament whenever elections are held.

But let’s ask more fundamental questions. Are such “corruption” trials about “regime change” conducted to protect the vested interests of the deep state? Is the principal contradiction in Pakistan between an unaccountable deep state and a harassed civil society or is it between the people and the financial corruption of their political leaders?

According to the JIT, the Sharifs’ wealth was accumulated and laundered in the 1980s and 1990s. This is the period when, thanks to the deep state, instead of being held accountable for corrupt practices, Mr Nawaz Sharif was made chief minister of Punjab and exiled when he stepped on the toes of the deep state. He is now again for the chop – charged with corruption three decades ago — because he will not kowtow to the deep state’s vested interests today. In the same vein, Ms Bhutto was sacked in 1990 and then again in 1996 for “corruption”, revived in 1993 and 2007 when she agreed to play ball and eventually got rid of soon thereafter when she threatened to renege on her “agreement” with the deep state. In the 1980s, Mohammad Khan Junejo was blatantly sacked by the deep state that brought him into power without even the pretext of a corruption trial. Before Mr Sharif, the PPP government of Asif Zardari was lucky to lose only one prime minister at the hands of the deep state, barely survived in office and has now been reduced to a regional party whose leader prefers the safety of foreign shores to his abode in his home province of Sindh. Meanwhile, Mr Sharif’s flanks have been whittled away by the denouement of stalwarts like Mushahidullah, Pervez Rashid, Nehal Hashmi, Tareq Fatemi, et al who have aroused the wrath of the deep state.

Let us be clear. There is no doubt that the Sharifs have accumulated a mountain of wealth beyond their known sources of income. Equally, however, there is no doubt that this trial is really about “regime change” and only apparently about “corruption” as so often in the past. It was preceded by two dharna attempts to get rid of him, failing which an alternate route has been sketched – thanks fortuitously to Panamagate – to achieve the same objective.

Mr Sharif’s options are limited. He can choose to resist and be ousted ignominiously. Or he can resign on the pretext of higher “moral ground” and live to fight his case another day. In both instances, he can paint himself as a victim. The tricky question will relate to how his voters, and by extension his party workers, react to the manner of his exit. In 1993 and 1999 his defiance of the deep state made him a popular leader who encashed his victimhood in 2013. But this time, the deep state is aiming to knock him out for good and “save the system” because the stakeholders arrayed against him are more numerous, more united and more powerful.

Jul 7

Path not taken

Posted on Friday, July 7, 2017 in Aapas ki baat with Najam Sethi on Geo

Path not taken

Three recent developments are significant. They shed light on the path that Pakistan’s powerful Establishment is treading. This will determine how Pakistan will fare at home and abroad. But, as a poet remarked, the path not taken will make all the difference.

The Establishment’s “strategic deterrence against India” was successfully tested last Wednesday. The Nasr short range ballistic missile is equipped to carry “tactical” nuclear bombs. The army chief, General Qamar Bajwa, said that “Nasr has put cold water on cold start”. The Indian “cold start doctrine” – readiness to aggress against Pakistan at hours’ notice – was earlier confirmed by the Indian army chief Gen Bipin Rawat. Regional peace is now dependent upon an expensive arms race that has escalated from conventional to nuclear weapons at the cost of people’s social welfare in both countries. Pakistan’s strategic capability, said Gen Bajwa, was a guarantee against a highly militarized and increasingly belligerent neighbor. India is the leading buyer of weapons in the world and the Modi government is vigorously pursuing the Doval “doctrine of aggressive-defense”.

The Establishment’s policy towards Afghanistan is also shaped by its India policy. Originally, it was packaged as a quest for “strategic depth”. This meant support for jihad by Pakhtun Islamic Mujahideen in the 1990s. When that project didn’t succeed, the Taliban were muscled into Kabul. But when that project also failed, they were provided safe havens in Pakistan’s borderlands to bide their time. Unfortunately, the unintended consequences of that reprieve led to the creation of the Pakistan Taliban and their transfiguration into the Islamic State in recent times that threatens both Afghanistan and Pakistan.

The strategic doctrine also changed marginally. Instead of “strategic depth” in a client state, the Establishment now furthered the cause of a “friendly state” in an independent Afghanistan. When this too didn’t happen, the doctrine was further adjusted to accept a “neutral” Afghanistan with power sharing among the various Afghan protagonists, especially Pakistan-backed Afghan Taliban. But the inability of the Establishment to nudge the Afghan Taliban into such an agreement, coupled with the inability of the US backed Kabul regime to coerce them into submission, has put paid to such efforts too. This failure in Afghanistan is now impinging critically on the Establishment’s relations with America. That leads into the second development.

US Senator John McCain’s warning – Pakistan should stop supporting or sheltering the Haqqani network or face US sanctions – comes after his visit to Pakistan last week. Earlier, Nato Secretary General, Jens Stoltenberg, found it “absolutely unacceptable that a country provides sanctuary to terrorist groups responsible for terrorist attacks inside another country”. Much the same sentiment was expressed in a recent Pentagon report to Senator McCain that blames Pakistan for the failure of US policy in Afghanistan. The pro-India Trump administration is now seriously reviewing its relationship with Pakistan in the light of its dwindling options in Afghanistan.

The third development that is casting a shadow on the Establishment’s national security paradigm is internal. It is reflected in the increasingly shrill accusation by the ruling PMLN party and government that the Establishment is “conspiring” to get rid of Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif. On Wednesday, as the army chief glowed with satisfaction over Nasr, the prime minister’s daughter, Maryam, was slamming the “hidden hands” behind the PanamaLeaks probe who were “hatching conspiracies against her father”.

The Establishment is institutionally hostile to popular civilian leaders who don’t fully buy into its India-fixated national security paradigm. Nawaz Sharif has seriously challenged this in his last two incarnations as prime minister. But the problem of getting rid of Mr Sharif is akin to the problem of getting rid of Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto. Mr Bhutto spawned Benazir who spawned Bilawal Bhutto. Last Wednesday, Maryam Nawaz Sharif emerged from the wraps of the Sharif household to successfully mark her political debut as a credible political successor to her besieged father. This would suggest that, in or out of office, Nawaz Sharif, and if necessary Maryam, will be the leader of the PMLN. And, like the PPP in Sindh, the PMLN is in Punjab to stay. This “regionalization” of politics reflects a failure of the Establishment to hold the center.

The Establishment’s refusal to talk “realistically” with India undermines its credentials and ability to negotiate “realistically” with Washington and Kabul. Much the same attitude underscores the debilitating tension in its relations with popularly elected civilian leaders at home. Significantly, attempts to review external policy and establish internal political neutrality after every change of high command at GHQ have invariably been wrecked at the altar of an unbending institutional view on both fronts.

This suggests that Pakistan is on a “collision course” at home and abroad. Fighting with India, US, Afghanistan, Taliban and Islamic State amidst shrill tensions in civil-military relations at a time when the comforting breeze of CPEC is just beginning to stir the economy, is bad for Pakistan. The sudden plunge of the rupee against the dollar is an ominous sign of the times. The path not taken will make all the difference.