These columns have been copied from Dawn and pasted here with necessary annotations and notes for the students of Nova CSS Academy. 

Back to horse trading

by Zahid Hussain

IMRAN Khan seems to be doing everything that he once claimed he was fighting against, including political horse-trading that he had earlier condemned as anathema[curse, قابلِ نفرت بد بختی] to democracy. A new wave of arrests has given rise to allegations that his government is carrying out a political witch-hunt. Most ominous [وہ چیز جو مستقبل کیلئے نحوست کا اشارہ دے] is the shrinking space for freedom of expression.

Few leaders have seen such a steep fall from a high pedestal within months of coming to power. A panic-stricken prime minister seems to have lost all sense of proportion. His most recent harangue [جارحانہ تقریر] in the National Assembly and his midnight address to the nation leave one wondering about his capabilities when it comes to navigating the country through the present financial and political morass [دلدل]. It’s a Greek tragedy unfolding.

It was reminiscent [یاد دلانے والا واقعہ] of the sordid [غیر اخلاقی] game that has long plagued Pakistani politics when the prime minister recently met some opposition legislators reportedly willing to cross the floor. A federal minister claims there were many more from Punjab waiting in line to shift their political allegiance.

Khan’s ‘Wasim Akram-plus’ seems to have finally blossomed into a fine craftsman engineering defections within the opposition ranks. Mean­while, a dexterous [مہارت رکھے والا]provincial governor through a ‘magic wand’ is said to have won enough numbers to change the PPP government in Sindh. “It’s a matter of time when the PTI will form the government in the province,” boasted a federal minister.

Neither horse-trading nor political witch-hunts can provide stability to the government.

What was unholy in the past has now been declared kosher [مقدس] under the rule of a self-proclaimed crusader against corruption. It’s certainly not awakening conscience that compels the opposition members to revolt against their ‘corrupt’ party leaders.

Those of us who are familiar with our sleazy [غیر اخلاقی پر مبنی] political culture know well how political engineering is done. There is no difference between the infamous ‘Changa Manga’ episode and the ‘Banigala’ meeting though the mechanics may vary. It is so pathetic to see PTI ministers hailing the turncoats selling their political loyalty.

It is not opportunism or monetary incentive alone that lures opposition members to the ruling party; security agencies too are often instrumental in securing defections. Their footprint has been too obvious in the latest political manoeuvring. The main objective is to prop up a weak coalition in the face of an increasingly aggressive opposition.

Although last week’s gathering of opposition parties has not been able to come up with any concrete plan that could threaten the government, it has pressed the panic button in PTI ranks. The smooth passage of the budget has not helped calm Khan’s anxiety.

There was nothing in his concluding speech at the budget session of the National Assembly that could raise public confidence in the government trying to deal with the worst financial crisis the country has faced in recent times. It was the same old talk of going after ‘thieves who left the country badly in debt’. In fact, Khan’s threats of fixing the opposition has made the credibility of the ongoing accountability more questionable.

Most disconcerting[اضمحلال پیدا کرنیوالا] is the arrest of a senior opposition MNA for allegedly carrying a large quantity of heroin.

He has also been charged for his alleged association with some banned sectarian groups. Shocking indeed. The timing of the arrest also makes the case more dubious. It reminds us of instances when political leaders were booked for ‘stealing buffalos’. Of course, drug charges are much more serious and under Pakistani law carry the death penalty. It is the first case of its kind involving a senior political leader.

Although the ANF comes under the federal government, much of its staff comes from the army and is headed by a major general. Notwithstanding whether or not the charges are credible, the arrest of a senior political leader may drag the institution into controversy. It’s not good for the image of the security establishment that is already in the eye of the storm for the increasingly high political profile of its leadership and its media wing.

Equally disturbing is the unannounced censorship of the media and growing restrictions on freedom of expression. Taking TV programmes off air without providing a sound reason illustrates the stifling of dissenting voices. Intriguingly[دلچسپی اور تجسس پر مبنی], TV channels are not supposed to telecast interviews of detained political leaders facing graft charges while there is no bar on them under the law to speak in parliament.

Such draconian measures [جابرانہ اقدامات] do not bode well for the democratic process. It is a sign of the government’s weakness and exposes its lack of confidence in handling the opposition. While in opposition, Imran Khan had benefited most from the free media but now he is afraid of it.

More troubling is that the government maintains it has nothing to do with the press curbs. Irrespective of who is doing it, it is ultimately the responsibility of the government to ensure media freedom. It is extremely dangerous to leave it to security agencies to run the affairs of the state.

One lesson of history that Khan should have learnt is that neither horse-trading nor political witch-hunts can provide stability to the government. It is a siege mentality that he needs to break for his own good. Facing a vociferous [loud and forceful] opposition is also part of the democratic political process.

It is apparent that the opposition is neither in a position nor is seeking to overthrow the government. But by his confrontational politics, the prime minister has made his government extremely unstable and is making it increasingly dependent on security agencies.

These are indeed extremely difficult times for the country that is facing serious financial crises and internal and external security challenges. Worsening political instability could make it more difficult to meet these challenges. Instead of resorting to political gamesmanship for short-term gains, the government needs to keep in view the country’s long-term interests.

The writer is an author and journalist.

zhussain100@yahoo.com

Twitter: @hidhussain

Published in Dawn, July 3rd, 2019

Kushners's bribe

Mahir AliJuly 03, 2019

EVEN before it opened in the Bahraini capital last week, the Manama conference intended to showcase half of Jared Kushner’s much ballyhooed peace initiative for the Middle East had been downgraded to a workshop.

This was partly because an inkling [little knowledge] of the fantasy on offer persuaded most participants to downgrade their representation.

The US president’s senior adviser cum son-in-law may have been proud of his initiative to placate [pacify] the Palestinians with an unfunded $50 billion bribe, possibly in the expectation that their rejection of it would provide yet another occasion for regurgitating [repeat statements, chew again and again] the old lie about the Palestinians never missing an opportunity to miss an opportunity. It turned out, however, that even the US administration’s usually uncritical allies in the Gulf showed little interest in a financial plan contingent [جس کے ہونیکی توقع ہو] on a political proposal that is yet to be outlined.

Israel too, generally revelling[موج مستیان کرنا] in the most manipulable and eager-to-please US administration the Likudites have ever come across, kept its distance from Manama, offering only to keep an open mind. There is hardly any chance that an open mind would extend to Kushner’s proposed $5bn transport corridor between the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, but the Israelis are well aware it will never come to that.

Few showed interest in the ‘financial plan’ for the Palestinians.

Palestinian officials pre-emptively [کسی واقعے کے ہونے سے پہلے اقدامات کرنا] rejected the Bahrain conclave, but that is hardly surprising in view of the Trump administration’s undisguised hostility, reflected in its decisions to shift the US embassy to Jerusalem, endorsement of the annexation of the occupied Golan Heights, and the withdrawal of American funds from organisations that sustain Palestinian existence under occupation, including the refugee agency UNRWA. Ironically, images from some of these defunded initiatives appeared in the glossy brochure distributed at the gathering in Manama.

The credibility of Kushner’s proposal was further undermined [کمزور ہونا] by the fact that its co-architect is David Friedman, the US ambassador to Israel, whose statements often go beyond even what Benjamin Netanyahu himself would dare to publicly propose.

Kushner was quoted as saying on the eve of the get-together in Bahrain that the two-state solution was a busted flush, necessitating fresh thinking. He’s not mistaken on that score; recent polls suggest that more than 50 per cent of Palestinians have lost hope in the prospect of an independent state 25 years after the promise of the Oslo accords. The obvious alternative would be a single, binational, democratic state. But that very idea is anathema to the proponents of the Zionist project, whose ideal of an exclusively Jewish state is incompatible with a large Palestinian population in a country where all citizens have equal rights.

Yet all but the most delusional [خوش فہمی کا شکار] adherents of apartheid must realise that it is unsustainable in the long run. The idea of injecting large amounts of money into the occupied territories as a means of indefinitely prolonging the occupation will find few takers among the Palestinian population, large sections of which see the Palestinian Authority as not only corrupt but also a collaborator with the Israeli security apparatus.

In an opinion column to The New York Times last week, Israel’s ambassador to the UN, Danny Dalon, did not dispute Palestinian chief negotiator Saeb Erakat’s contention that participating in Manama would be akin to surrender, instead asking: “What’s wrong with Palestinian surrender?” Inevitably, he reheats the myth about the Palestinian refusal to recognise Israel’s existence — which in fact was part of the Oslo deal — and suggests that “surrendering will create the opportunity to trans­­form Palestinian society” and lead to its ‘liberation’.

That sounds much like an official in apartheid South Africa addressing the black majority. It even has echoes of the slogan the Nazis put up at the entrance to Ausch­witz, ‘Arbeit macht frei’. Towards the end of a scholarly article in the Israeli daily Haaretz last month, Yoav Rinon, an associate professor at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, writes: “In the light of the essential similarities between German identity and Jewish-Israeli identity along their various stages of construction, we may conclude that we are sliding down the same slope, which leads, for precisely the same reasons, to the same abyss of racism and fascism.”

Such an opinion would, had it appeared in a British or American paper, inevitably been decried as an instance of anti-Semitism. There cannot be much doubt, though, that Kushner’s efforts, on behalf of his father-in-law’s administration, are broadly geared towards preserving Israeli hegemony over the occupied territories. As things stand, Israel’s likely aim is to annex all it wants of the West Bank, and eventually throw the scraps to Jordan (and Egypt in the case of the Gaza Strip). That may be a bridge too far even for those Arab states that have been complicit in the subjugation of the Palestinians. But alternative ‘solutions’ also remain elusive.

mahir.dawn@gmail.com

Published in Dawn, July 3rd, 2019

MNCs and ports {seems irrelevant to our needs}

IN this age of globalisation, multinational corporations hold a vital place in the world’s port industry as 80 per cent of the global trade is handled by maritime transportation. Ports the world over are now increasingly being developed and operated by the MNCs for container terminal services in an environment of deregulation. With the privatisation of ports and globalisation of trade, a race to the bottom has come about in labour standards for workers.

So the union busting by the South Asia Port Terminal, Karachi, a subsidiary of the Hutchison Ports, is business as usual. Through the internet, the SAPT Democratic Workers’ Union does have supporters in the world hence the news of sacking of the union members four weeks ago was circulated and a signature campaign ‘Reinstate the Karachi 8’ was launched by the LabourStart, a global network of over 700 volunteers who devote their time and effort to support labour.

Just recently, four more workers were dismissed, this writer was told by the union leader who was allegedly arrested on fake charges and jailed for two weeks. The management registered a pocket union at the National Industrial Relations Commission by declaring the company trans-provincial though sea ports exist only in Sindh. The union is fighting the case against unfair labour practices but, sadly, has no hope for justice.

Containerised cargo handling activities are ranked as one of the most hazardous [filled with dangers] occupations.The workers at SAPT are hired on contract, at low wages, without employment letter and denied social protection coverage. Health and safety conditions are poor. In March this year, a worker died in an accident because the container handling equipment was not equipped with sensors and the camera for reverse viewing did not work. Faulty equipment and poor machinery are in addition to the risks of falls from a height and being struck by a vehicle or moving object.

Port workers are increasingly facing issues of health and safety.

Raising a collective voice is the only option available to workers to negotiate better terms and conditions. But the problem is that employers in general abhor union activities.

According to analysts, abhorrence [dislike] or avoidance of unions is linked to the idea that only the employer should cater to employee welfare, hence there is hostility towards the involvement of ‘third parties’, such as trade unions. Though this analysis was done in the context of America’s maltreatment of unions, it fits well in the Pakistan context where local employers tend to adopt a paternalistic attitude and ‘look after’ their employees through a welfare lens rather than acceding to entitlements and rights of workers. MNC employers have their own lens of so-called ‘corporate social responsibility’ to paint their image as ‘concerned and conscientious’.

It is not just workers in Pakistan; port workers worldwide are increasingly facing issues of health and safety, union busting, loss of jobs due to automation, and the erosion of hard-won labour rights. However, workers have not given up. Unions in the global port industry are alive and kicking despite their weakened position. In January this year, the port workers’ union in Cochin, India, gave a strike notice, demanding a raise in the minimum wage and pensions and universal social security.

Port workers in Cyprus gave a strike call in January over a dispute on collective agreement. In April, port workers in Spain threatened to strike as their severance rights and compensation had been affected and the productivity bonuses frozen since 2010 leading to a wage cut of about 30 per cent. In the same month, workers at an Algerian port went on strike to demand higher wages, contractual changes and the reinstatement of dismissed workers. In May, the port workers in Genova, Italy, went on strike against the authorities’ decision to grant access to a weapon-carrying Saudi Arabia cargo ship to dock at the port.

Globalisation has given the MNCs en­­hanced power to shape labour relations according to their own interests. Yet workers do retain some power in the asymmetrical relationship between employers and workers.

Workers’ power comes from two sources, theorists concede. The first source is located in the position of the worker in the economic system which gives structural power to the worker. The second source is collective organisation of workers which bestows associational power.

A study of MNCs and trade unions indicates that in services and extracting sectors, workers tend to have less structural power hence the subsidiaries shun trade unions. Strong engagement occurs where workers have structural power in terms of both value-added activities of the subsidiary and the workers’ distinctive skills.

In Pakistan, workers are unable to mobilise associational power due to many reasons and their structural power is weak as, by and large, our workforce has little education, skills and technological know-how.

The writer is a researcher in the development sector.

zeenathisam2004@gmail.com

Published in Dawn, July 3rd, 2019

Dalai Lama's lapse

{This column is about Dalai Lama's sexist statement. Read the first paragraph and decide whether to continur reading or not}

“IF a female Dalai Lama comes, then she should be more attractive” because if she were not attractive then “people prefer not to see her”. This was what the soon-to-be 84-year-old spiritual leader of Tibet, the Dalai Lama,had to say when he was asked about whether a woman could be his successor. It was not the first time that the Dalai Lama had this to say, though he has since apologised. Four years ago, in 2015, it was not well received either, with women and other rights activists shocked at the Dalai Lama’s sexism.

Obviously, it did not change his mind. The BBC journalist who went to interview him in Dharamsala, where he has lived for the past 60 years, wanted to make sure he really meant to say what he said. It seems now that he did; in clarifying comments, he added that in Buddhist teaching inner and outer beauty are important and both must be cultivated. The clarifying statements are surprising in their own way as they go against the inner-beauty and inner-peace dimensions of Buddhism that have been magnified as aspects of Buddhist practice, such as yoga.

The biggest shock of all is that a man renowned for his wisdom and equanimity [calm and composure], his concern for humanity as a whole, would subscribe to a view that clearly substantiates the premise that women are to be judged by their looks and that this is what makes up the bulk of what they have to offer to the world. The Dalai Lama, of course, has made no such statement in the context of a male successor or even himself. After all, while he is a spiritual leader, he is neither young nor handsome, and yet thousands line up to get a glimpse of his face all the time. Why would a female Dalai Lama not be able to earn the same favour, or perform the same function?

The controversy is an illustrative one both in its content and its context. Women, after all, are terribly used to ‘good’ men saying sexist things and having these ascribed to dated views. Undoubtedly, the initial reaction is to consider the fact that the Dalai Lama is over 80 years old and less versed in the unacceptability of his statements. That may be all very well, but it sounds terribly like the excuses we always make for men when they say stupid and sexist things that belittle women.

The biggest shock is that a man renowned for his wisdom would subscribe to a sexist view.

This was the Dalai Lama’s second chance and his intentions were made adequately clear. The insinuation within the statement is less clear: that if a woman were his successor she would have been a figurehead, and that figureheads need to be attractive and pleasing. They also lack the depth and authenticity that comes with occupying important positions. The Dalai Lama’s current sexism notwithstanding, he has been held by millions to be the opposite of all of this, a representative of a David-versus-Goliath struggle that pits the long-occupied Tibet against the far stronger and more powerful China.

Over the years, he has doled out a ton of inspirational quotes that adorn websites and calendars, hosted celebrities and world leaders, and been a leader in many more senses than just in terms of Tibetan Buddhism. Some say that he is like an annoying old uncle who constantly makes inappropriate comments about the women of the family.

The Dalai Lama is not some old uncle; in fact, not even an old uncle is an old uncle. Everyone who makes sexist comments does so with the knowledge of the fact that they are hurtful and derisive not just to the women in front of them but to all women and girls who hear or read it.

The culture of making excuses for sexism, excuses that range from saying the statement was a mistake, to arguing that men don’t know any better, to (most often) blaming the women for taking offence in the first place, is as bad as saying sexist things itself. Not only does it condone the idea that it is not always wrong to treat women like pretty objects, or insist that their beauty should form the basis of judgement; it ensures that men continue to decide what goes and doesn’t go, what sort of statements can be made and which ones cannot.

Many men in Pakistan behave just like the Dalai Lama. They make statements and then pretend to be ignorant as to their impact. They refuse to understand that the words and statements that make up human discourse are directly connected to the respect that we allot to women and are just as connected to the crimes committed against them.

There are also, however, men in Pakistan who wonder what can be done about the deplorable situation of women in the country, and believe that women cannot be safe unless they have male protection. The Dalai Lama’s story should be an instructive one for these men. If men began to police themselves and other men, call out instances of sexism such that those who make them are shamed, then they will be using their male privilege to do something that makes life better for women in this country.

The only good thing that can be taken from the Dalai Lama’s sexist statement is if it can be a message to all men that a good man who is sexist can’t be termed a good man. Words matter, degradation is built upon them; a society that treats women as if they were objects, unable to contribute intellectually or socially or constructively, is a morally depraved society, a sexist and unjust society. So for all the men who want to ‘do something’, here is a simple recipe: pay attention to the things you say, the words you use; it is not everything, but it is an important, crucial and very urgent beginning.

The writer is an attorney teaching constitutional law and political philosophy.

rafia.zakaria@gmail.com

Published in Dawn, July 3rd, 2019