 |
| |
 |
Selected news/columns/editorials: 15.03.2016
Tue-15Mar-2016
|
| |
|
| |
|
SOMETHING is rotten in the state of higher education in the country. A familiar set of circumstances — students belonging to different unions attacking each other, triggering disciplinary action by university authorities — has yielded an extraordinary confession.
A student of Punjab University allegedly not only told university authorities at a disciplinary hearing that he considers slain Taliban chieftains Nek Muhammad and Baitullah Mehsud to be his leaders, but that he intends to avenge their deaths in drone strikes.
Revealingly, Attique Afridi, the student now in custody of the intelligence apparatus, is believed to be associated with the Pakhtun Educational Development Movement — a PU student association, alongside a Baloch group, that clashed with the Islami Jamiat-i-Tulaba, the student union more commonly associated with religious extremism on public campuses.
The roots of extremist links in universities, both public and private, appear to have spread far and wide.
Long rumoured, but mostly ignored, the problem of militancy and extremism among university students may be coming to the fore for a complex set of reasons.
The relentless pressure on the banned TTP and other anti-state militant outfits has likely created a vacuum that new breeds of militancy will try and fill.
In addition, the turmoil in the Middle East, the rise of the militant Islamic State group and a growing online culture where hate material and militant propaganda have vastly proliferated, have probably worked to attract a growing number of university students to extremist fare and militancy.
Certainly, the problem is not new — Omar Sheikh remains one of the most notorious private-school educated militants in the country’s history — and is not confined to public campuses. Indeed, private universities may be more vulnerable to creeping extremism and militancy on campus because most have no experience of monitoring or handling extremist organisations on campus, among teachers or students.
Combating extremism and militancy on campuses will prove a formidable challenge. For one, the state itself appears to have underestimated the problem.
The National Action Plan drawn up in December 2014 rightly identified the need to reform and modernise madressahs, but there was no mention of universities in the mainstream.
In addition, the higher-education landscape is heavily fractured, with the provinces trying to assert their rights under the 18th Amendment, the centre failing to embrace a new role as coordinator among the federating units, and private universities having mushroomed in recent years with no adequate regulatory structure.
But those challenges only underscore the need for urgency. Recent history has demonstrated how militancy and extremism can metastasise quickly, so while the problems on campuses today are real, they still appear to be confined to relatively small sections of the student population.
Action taken now — concerted, meaningful action across the provinces that balances the concerns of security with the rights of students — could help avoid a terrible societal unravelling. Extremism on campuses is an addressable problem.
Published in Dawn, March 15th, 2016
ISLAMABAD: For the first time the military top brass suggested publicly on Monday that the army was about to conclude the military offensive in tribal areas and held deliberations on the post-operations phase.
Army Chief Gen Raheel Sharif, while chairing a corps commanders meeting at the General Headquarters, called for ensuring that terrorists do not get a foothold in the region again.
“COAS emphasised, as we move towards conclusion of large-scale kinetic operations in Fata, there is a need to look ahead and consolidate the gains for long-term stability,” an ISPR statement on the meeting said.
The military operations in North Waziristan, codenamed Zarb-i-Azb, which commenced in June 2014, are now in the last phase with troops consolidating control of Shawal Valley.
Gen Raheel tells commanders to ensure that terrorists don’t get a foothold in the region again
The army, however, now uses the name Zarb-i-Azb more broadly as an overarching counter-terrorism plan, which includes both ‘kinetic operations’ in Fata and ‘intelligence-based operations (IBOs)’ in the rest of the country.
Talking to Dawn, military spokesman Lt Gen Asim Bajwa underscored that while the operations in Fata were drawing to a close, Zarb-i-Azb as a strategy would continue with intensified IBOs across the country targeting terrorist infrastructure.
The meeting was given an overview of the operation in Shawal, which has been continuing since August last year. The troops began the final push for clearing the valley almost three weeks ago.
The troops, Gen Bajwa said, had gained control of all major heights and passes in Shawal and are now busy in ‘sanitising operations’. He would not say how long the troops would take to complete the task. According to figures provided by the army, 207 terrorists were killed in Shawal as troops engaged over 100 militant targets. Five soldiers also lost their lives during this phase.
“COAS expressed his complete satisfaction over the progress of ongoing operation in Shawal and adjoining areas in North Waziristan Agency,” the ISPR statement said.
Regarding the post-operation strategy, the elements emphasised by Gen Sharif include return and settlement of the displaced persons according to agreed timeline, escalation in the pace of IBOs for elimination of terrorism infrastructure in the country and stricter border management to prevent cross-border movement of terrorists.
The army chief further vowed that the gains made during recent operations would not be compromised.
The corps commanders also discussed the evolving situation in Afghanistan and the Middle East and the uncertainty in ties with India.
Published in Dawn, March 15th, 2016
REEMA OMER — THE DAWN  The writer is a legal adviser for the International Commission of Jurists.
Nearly a century after the Legal Practitioners’ Act was amended to remove the legal bar on women from practising law, women lawyers and judges in Pakistan have come a long way. However, significant challenges still remain that impede women’s access to positions of leadership in the legal profession.
The amendments to the Legal Practitioners’ Act in 1923 were in response to the refusal of high courts in Calcutta and Patna to allow qualified women lawyers to appear in courts as they were considered “unfit for the duties of the legal profession”.
Opposing the Bill, Maulvi Mian Asjad-ul-ulah from Bhagalpur Division, said in the legislative assembly such an amendment would be antithetical to justice, as “susceptibility to female charms” would make male judges and witnesses partial towards women advocates, and in the long run, women would “take the practice away from men”. Another member of the legislative assembly, Khan Bahadur Abdur Rahim Khan from the then North-West Frontier Province, supported the bill because “the presence of ladies as barristers in court will make the judges and the barristers behave themselves”.
Sentiments constituting similarly pernicious gender stereotyping are still being repeated in Pakistan almost 100 years later. For example, Maulana Sherani, the chairperson of the Council of Islamic Ideology, said last yearthat only women over the age of 40 could become judges as that is when “women no longer remain attractive or marriageable”. Similarly, in a private conversation, a retired judge of the Supreme Court said that because of their “caring and sensitive nature”, women lawyers were unsuitable for “hard legal matters” and if they are to practice, they should focus their practice on “softer” areas of the profession, such as family law.
The government doesn’t see women’s under-representation in the legal profession as a problem.
Perhaps unsurprisingly, such sexist attitudes have contributed to the near-exclusion of women from positions of authority and leadership in Pakistan’s legal profession and the judiciary.
Pakistan is the only country in South Asia to have never had a woman Supreme Court judge (India, Nepal, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka have all had women serve in their highest courts), and only seven out of Pakistan’s 120 high court judges (5.8pc) are women.
Examine: The hell of workplace harassment: Pakistani women are not 'asking' for it
Even in the district judiciary, where women are appointed judges in greater numbers, the representation of women judges sharply decreases with seniority (and hence authority). In Punjab, for example, while 20pc civil judges are women, the figure drops to 5pc in senior civil judges. Similarly, while 7pc of additional district and sessions judges are women, the number of district and sessions judges, who have executive and judicial control over their districts, is only 2pc.
The Bar too shows similar gender imbalance. Since its inception in 1973, the 25-member Pakistan Bar Council, the highest regulatory body for lawyers in the country, has never had a woman member. Bar associations fare better, but there too Asma Jahangir is the only lawyer to have been elected as president of the Supreme Court Bar Association.
Yet, the government and the judiciary still do not recognise women’s under-representation in the legal profession as a problem and reform is nowhere to be seen on their agendas. The Supreme Court’s comprehensive National Judicial Policy, 2009, for example, highlighted a number of issues impeding the proper functioning of the judiciary. Gender disparity was not even mentioned once in the policy.
There are many reasons for women’s under-representation in the legal profession. Some reflect the general obstacles and discriminatory societal attitudes towards women that permeate other areas of their professional and private life. There is, for example, now greater acceptance of women’s education, but women as professionals are still viewed with suspicion.
Where women work, there is greater opposition towards women entering traditionally ‘male’ professions such as the law. And where women choose to practise as lawyers, the expectation often is that they will discontinue once they get married and have children. Similar to other fields, Muslim women from elite backgrounds are better able to gain acceptance and success than their counterparts from less privileged backgrounds or religious minority groups.
Some challenges faced by women lawyers and judges, however, are more specific to the legal profession, many of which hamper women’s equal participation in the law not just in Pakistan but globally.
First, there are no clear criteria on the basis of which the Judicial Commission nominates candidates for positions in the high court and Supreme Court. In the larger context of sexism in the legal profession, such lack of transparency often works to the detriment of women.
Second, sexual and other forms of harassment continue to be pervasive in the legal profession. The judiciary and the Bar are largely unaccountable institutions and complaints of sexual harassment and other misconduct against lawyers and judges are rarely investigated.
And third, because of the traditional notion of the law as a ‘male’ profession, there is lack of will, even resentment, towards making any kind of accommodation for women lawyers and judges, from separate toilets in courtrooms, to maternity leave and childcare.
Article 25 of the Constitution provides that there shall be no discrimination on the basis of sex. The UN Convention on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women, which Pakistan acceded to in 1996, obligates states to take measures to ensure women’s full participation in public life.
Beyond Cedaw, the Beijing Declaration and Platform for Action, adopted in 1995 at the Fourth World Conference on Women and endorsed by Pakistan, outlines that states must “ensure that women have the same right as men to be judges, advocates or other officers of the court” and “commit themselves to establishing the goal of gender balance ... in the judiciary, including, inter alia, setting specific targets and implementing measures to substantially increase the number of women with a view to achieving equal representation of women and men, if necessary through positive action”.
As Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif finalises his government’s National Women’s Empowerment Policy, it is time the under-representation of women in the legal profession and judiciary is given due recognition, and steps are taken as a matter of urgency to remove discriminatory barriers keeping women from positions of leadership in the legal field.
The writer is a legal adviser for the International Commission of Jurists.
reema.omer@icj.org
Twitter: reema_omer
Published in Dawn, March 15th, 2016
POLICY puzzles are solved solely in the national interest. So be it! As a first step to regain lost dignity we need to follow a foreign policy that promotes a sustained, determined friendship with China and Iran.
The sheer naïveté of this suggestion will be met with howls of derision. How can we expect the ruling forces to alienate the bastion of their assets, they that nurture their children? Or for that matter expect the Iranians, the forlorn promise of the late RCD notwithstanding, to overcome their historic disdain for us in particular?
Liaquat Ali Khan’s decision to visit the US in 1950 seemingly snubbing Josef Stalin’s earlier invitation set the direction for close ties with the West even whilst giving a veneer of non-alignment. Suffice it to say that the US imperative to contain communist expansion and our overriding apprehension of Indian aggression has determined our foreign policy throughout the post independence years. After 68 years what have we learned?
Conclusively, that each country acts in its own self interest and the bigger they are the more muscle is exerted to bend others to their will. The law of the jungle dressed up in fine intentions. They then “threaten to bomb you back to the stone-age” (Armitage) or “you are with us or against us” (Bush) or “we will make a horrible example of you” (Kissinger).
We are pariahs in most of the world.
There is found no evidence of Chairman Mao or Ayatollah Khomeini ever making such threats against us. Nor has any finger been pointed at any Chinese or Iranian state authority linking them to the assassinations of Liaquat Ali Khan, Zia or Benazir Bhutto.
Our past choices have been honed on a rapacious appetite that relied on regular bailouts from international aid and loans. That it suited the West to keep us afloat even as we persistently violated codicils of IMF treaties, is never really understood. This national ethos of dependency has devolved on our own business community — rely on the state to bail you out as and when required.
With our national debt at a historic high ($50 billion), declining exports and our tax-GDP amongst the lowest in the world how long is the collective amnesia of our dilapidated state going to continue? Economic deliverance an illusion, international respect a pipe dream.
Meanwhile countries that steadfastly held an independent course may be eating grass but Iranians, Cubans, Venezuelans and the Chinese interalia walk tall and look forward to a genuine friends-not-masters relationship with the rest of the world.
Deserving or not, we are pariahs in most of the world and specifically so in the countries we cling to the closest. And where is India? India whose inconsistencies and duplicities abound, turns up at the top table as a much exalted guest; its power applauded, its culture venerated, its people accepted. As far back as 1985, the Festival of India was launched with balloons and parades and doves released by president Reagan and Rajiv Gandhi.
This was the first time the US had earmarked a period of 18 months (not the usual calendar year) as tribute to a foreign culture. Bloomingdales ran a perpetual India wing. If Pakistan has ever had such a tribute it was probably at a 7 Eleven.
A manifest desire for the closest friendship with both China and Iran does not require abandoning of current relations. This is not a zero sum game and in any case whatever our historic use, be it nuclear muscle, geo-strategic location or the modest flow of goods and services, it remains constant. The world is lining up to take steps for greater commercial ties with both China and Iran none more so than India; yet there is a window if we seize this moment whilst the US conservatives hostility persists — a friend in need.
FPCCI has proposed a target of $5bn on trade from the current $400 million, hardly ambitious compared to the $15bn achieved by India even whilst sanctions were in place.
Our policy should be a consistent and clear state-sponsored promotion of a vigorous relationship. Economic diplomacy initiatives that include MFN status, skewed tax preferential treatment, elimination of regressive bureaucracy.
Take the nation on board on CPEC, clarify the current obscurity and give it top priority in a national economic plan. Revisit the IPI pipeline project now that banking restrictions are removed. Bundle this with use of our soft power. India has adopted an India China Tourism Year which we should have done.
The Indian arts and entertainment industry has a phenomenal global following and has done much to make India shining. Our own nascent industry will be equally effective in the promotion of Pakistan.
Lifting of sanctions is a start and a full menu of initiatives should be launched for this endeavour overcoming all reservations of the recalcitrant mandarins who would seek to obstruct.
The writer is a financial consultant.
Published in Dawn, March 15th, 2016
IF it were in their power, militants would turn Turkey into another Iraq or Syria. On Sunday, Ankara was targeted for the third time in five months when an area close to the diplomatic enclave was bombed, leaving at least 34 dead, though there was no official word yet about who could be behind the atrocity.
This year there have been six blasts, including one in the capital city a month ago when the car bombing of a military convoy killed 28 people.
The crime was claimed by the Kurdistan Freedom Falcons, a breakaway group of the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK).
However, there is little doubt which militant group was behind the January carnage in Istanbul when a suicide bomber exploded himself in Sultanahmet, killing 10 people, eight of them foreign tourists, prompting Prime Minister Ahmet Davutoglu to pledge Turkey would not “backtrack in its struggle against” the militant Islamic State group.
There is no doubt Ankara is facing one of the worst crises in decades because there are no signs yet of all parties to the Syrian conflict agreeing on a common peace formula. Most unfortunately, the ceasefire with the PKK stands shattered.
On top of all this is the flood of Syria refugees, 2.5 million of whom Turkey has accommodated. Ankara now has to listen to European grievances and halt the refuges’ exodus to Europe — a tough and highly unpleasant task in the midst of the grave humanitarian crisis in Turkey’s underbelly.
There is no quick-fix solution. Turkey has to renew efforts to seek a ceasefire with the PKK and mobilise all its resources to strengthen Mr Davutoglu’s resolve to crush IS terrorism.
Focusing on the Kurds is taking the attention away from the threat that is the IS. Above all, the AKP-led government must try to be more tolerant of criticism and soften the authoritarian tendencies often seen in its policies.
Without a national consensus and a placid domestic scene a determined fight against terrorism is inconceivable.
Published in Dawn, March 15th, 2016
MOSCOW: Russian President Vladimir Putin said on Monday he was instructing his armed forces to start pulling out of Syria, over five months after he ordered the launch of a military operation that shored up his ally, Syrian President Bashar al Assad.
Mr Putin, at a meeting in the Kremlin with his defence and foreign ministers, said Russian military forces in Syria had largely fulfilled their objectives and ordered an intensification of Russia’s diplomatic efforts to broker a peace deal in the country.
But the Russian leader signalled Moscow would keep a military presence: he did not give a deadline for the completion of the withdrawal and said Russian forces would stay on at the port of Tartous and at the Hmeymim airbase in Syria’s Latakia province.
Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said Mr Putin had telephoned Mr Assad to inform him of the Russian decision.
Says Russian forces have largely fulfilled their objectives
In a statement, the Kremlin announced that Mr Putin had called President Assad to inform Moscow’s long-standing ally of the move that appears to end the main part of its intervention in Syria’s conflict that began in September.
“The leaders noted that the actions of the Russian air force allowed to radically change the situation in the fight against terrorism, to disorganise the fighters’ infrastructure and inflict significant damage on them,” the Kremlin said.
“Taking that into account, the President of Russia stated that the main tasks set before the armed forces of Russia in Syria had been completed. It was agreed to carry out the withdrawal of the main part of Russia’s air force contingent,” the statement said.
“Assad noted the professionalism, courage and heroism of the officers of the Russian armed forces that took part in the military operations and expressed deep appreciation to Russia,” the Kremlin said.
Published in Dawn, March 15th, 2016
Did Putin trump Obama in Syria?
How will a partial Russian withdrawal from Syria affect the Geneva peace talks?
Al-Jazeera/15 Mar 2016 12:28 GMT
![Russian President Vladimir Putin shakes hands with Syrian President Bashar Assad in 2015 [AP]](http://www.aljazeera.com/mritems/imagecache/mbdxxlarge/mritems/Images/2016/3/15/3f2b72feabe14b71860c02d8a51940db_18.jpg "Did Putin trump Obama in Syria?")
Russian President Vladimir Putin shakes hands with Syrian President Bashar Assad in 2015 [AP] 
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Marwan Bishara is the senior political analyst at Al Jazeera.
@MarwanBishara
Have you noticed how President Vladimir Putin does not prepare the political grounds or give any advance notice before he acts? Or how he seems not to give a damn about international public opinion?
True to brand Putin, the Russian leader’s decision to withdraw forces from Syria this week was as much of a surprise as his decision to deploy them back in September.
He shocked and stunned his friends and foes alike. Well, except perhaps US President Barack Obama.
|
|
|
Marwan Bishara: The meaning of Putin's Syria surprise
|
Putin, previously an officer in the former Soviet Union's main security agency, the KGB, has not given up on his style and demeanour. Old habits die hard, if at all.
Unpredictable or uncanny
He reveals little and maintains an element of surprise in much of what he does - as though he is trying to impress or awe; not exactly the way one would expect a superpower leader to act.
Yet, Putin's decisions are not random, uncanny or eccentric. In fact, he demonstrated thus far that he’s a calculating and savvy tactician and might even prove to be a successful strategist.
READ MORE: Analysis: A reluctant Russia in the Middle East?
In this regard, Putin claims to have achieved his goals after five months of aerial bombardment, which include taking on the "terrorists" in order to save the Syrian regime.
|
Putin claims to have achieved his goals after five months of aerial bombardment, which include taking on the 'terrorists' in order to save the Syrian regime.
|
And while Russia's mainly aerial military intervention did prevent the collapse of the Bashar al-Assad regime, it proved insufficient to impose a Russian order in the country.
In any case, and regardless of whether Putin’s mission was indeed accomplished, the question remains: Did Putin prove Obama wrong on Syria? Or has he finally heeded Obama's advice?
Putin's calculus in Syria
Obama has warned his Russian counterpart against getting bogged down in a second Afghanistan and urged him to work with and not against those trying to take on ISIL instead.
Contrary to the warnings of the Obama administration, Putin continued to support the Assad dictatorship at a great cost to Syria and the Syrian people.
His gamble in Syria did not backfire and the country did not turn into a Russian quagmire.
Putin, who seized on Obama's hesitation to deploy military force in Syria, had succeeded in pulling the rug from under the Obama administration to dictate the way towards a diplomatic solution, and to carve a new role for Russia in Syria and beyond.
 |
| Russian President Vladimir Putin [EPA] |
Over the past five years, as Syria descended into a fully fledged civil war with tragic consequences to its people, Putin was steadfast in his support for the Syrian regime, while Obama has been reluctant, indecisive and weak.
Since he announced back in 2011 that Assad had to go, Obama did little - if anything at all - to make this happen. Syrians expected that when the leader of the world's superpower made such an assertion, it would have more value than if Joe the Plumber uttered it.
The armchair general
Obama was even reluctant to use power against the Assad regime's use of chemical weapons against its people. Even his supporters were disappointed; and his vice president, Joe Biden, admitted: "Big nations don't bluff."
READ MORE: Peace process in Syria: Talk, talk, kill, kill
Moreover, Obama rejected the idea of a no-fly zone in northern Syria to protect the refugees. His support for those whom Washington deems "moderate" has been terribly limited and inconsistent, just as his fight to "degrade and defeat" ISIL has been slow and unstrategic.
In short, unlike Putin, Obama has weighed all the angles and deliberated on the meaning and consequences of military actions after the two wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and the military campaign in Libya. He examines all the scenarios, options and instruments available to him.
But unlike Putin, Obama did not act. His deliberation and consultation, like those of an armchair general, were mainly to spare and not to guide the US to take direct military action in Syria, other than against ISIL
One must not rush to a conclusion, as Russia will continue to maintain a serious military presence and bases in the future; it will continue to push for a friendly regime in Damascus. With oil prices dwindling, Putin doesn't have the surplus cash to fuel an open ended war in Syria.
The way forward
But the timing of the Russian decision to coincide with the opening of Syrian talks in Geneva this week underlines its political importance.
|
Putin's message to Assad may be read as follows: You can no longer bank on sustained Russian effort to defeat your enemies ...
|
Putin's message to Assad may be read as follows: You can no longer bank on sustained Russian effort to defeat your enemies; you must instead negotiate in good faith a way out of the deadly civil war.
If Assad tries to outsmart the Russians by betting on his allies in Tehran to support his exigent stance, I would not be surprised if the Russians lifted their protection, and Assad ended up in the Hague on war crimes charges sooner rather than later.
Assad denies that he has any differences with Putin, but he is probably too cautious to make any pronouncements at this stage that might trigger Russian anger and lead to closer Russian-US realignment.
There are increasing signs that perhaps Putin and Obama are heading towards a more accommodating phase of Russian-US relations.
After all, while the calculating Obama was complaining about the Russian intervention, he has been trying through his Secretary of State John Kerry to turn the challenge of Putin's involvement into an opportunity that allows him to push forward with a co-chaired diplomatic process with better guarantees for success.
Putin might have played his cards right over the past six months, and his gamble could pay off diplomatically, but it will be Obama who will eventually cash in his chips, whether through sanctions relief, diplomatic empowerment or even cooperation in other areas of the region and the world.
Marwan Bishara is the senior political analyst at Al Jazeera. Follow him on Facebook.
The views expressed in this article are the author's own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera's editorial policy.
Source: Al Jazeera
GENEVA: Talks to end Syria’s civil war opened in Geneva on Monday, but hopes for a breakthrough remained remote with the sides locked in a bitter dispute over the future of President Bashar al Assad.
The UN-hosted negotiations, which began a day before the fifth anniversary of the outbreak of the conflict, are the latest effort to end violence that has killed more than 270,000 people and displaced millions.
As the delegations arrived in Geneva over the weekend, Damascus warned that any discussion about removing Mr Assad would be a “red line”.
Top western diplomats immediately condemned the comment from Syrian Foreign Minister Walid Muallem as divisive and provocative.
After his first official meeting with the regime on Monday, UN envoy Staffan de Mistura told reporters that “strong statements (and) rhetoric” were part of every tough negotiation and that his initial discussions with government representative Bashar al Jaafari were “useful”.
Speaking earlier, he said the talks quickly needed to focus on the ‘real’ issues. “What is the real issue?” he asked. “The mother of all issues (is) political transition.”
The UN envoy said the agenda for the negotiations would follow a Security Council resolution that calls for a transitional government to be formed in six months, and general elections within the following year.
A lot has changed since the last round of indirect talks collapsed in February, particularly for many of Syria’s war-ravaged people who have previously been deprived of regular access to life-saving aid.
A temporary ceasefire introduced on Feb 27 has largely held, despite accusations of violations from both sides, allowing aid to reach some 150,000 people living under siege.
The truce — the most significant since the conflict began — has sparked cautious encouragement.
But experts warn that negotiations will still struggle to achieve a durable peace on the fractured battlefields where multiple groups are competing for dominance.
Representatives from Syrian Kurdish groups, which have played a key role in combating jihadi fighters, have been excluded from the talks despite a push from Russia.
Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov reaffirmed Moscow’s position on Monday, saying that “the whole spectrum of Syrian political forces” should have a voice in Geneva.
“Otherwise this cannot claim to be a representative forum,” he was quoted as saying by the RIA Novosti state news agency.
Published in Dawn, March 15th, 2016
|
|
|
|
|
BACK |
|
 |
|
| Site Menu |
|
Students' Guide To CSS Exam
Populism is a threat to democracy
Population Explosion in Pakistan
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
