Shifting Realities in Syria

As recently as October, Secretary of State John Kerry argued that there will never be peace in Syria as long as President Bashar al-Assad “remains the focus of power” there. Even now, American officials continue to insist that any lasting political solution will require Mr. Assad’s exit. But the unsettling truth is that the brutal dictator is still clinging to power and the United States and its allies are going to have to live with him, at least for now.

Mr. Kerry seemed tacitly to acknowledge as much recently when he urged Mr. Assad to change his policies, while omitting the usual call for him to leave office.

In the last year, the situation in Syria has changed quickly and dramatically. The Islamic State, also known as ISIS or ISIL, now controls about half the country, while the rebels America counted on to defeat Mr. Assad have become weaker in the face of steady gains by the regime.

There seems no chance that Mr. Assad will leave power voluntarily anytime soon or that he will be forced out by the non-ISIS rebels unless the United States intervenes directly, a course President Obama has rejected. Recent history should humble anyone who would predict the direction of regime change. Except for Tunisia, countries that overthrew their leaders during the 2011 Arab Spring movements have replaced the old dictators with new ones or descended into chaos.

Besides, the greater threat now is not Mr. Assad but the Islamic State, especially if it continues to expand in Syria, entices more foreign fighters into its ranks and uses its territory to launch attacks on the West. A recent study by the RAND Corporation, which does research for the government, says the collapse of the Assad regime, while unlikely now, would be the “worst possible outcome” for American interests — depriving Syria of its remaining state institutions and creating more space for the Islamic State and other extremists to spread mayhem.

This was not the scenario envisioned in 2011 when Syrians staged peaceful protests against Mr. Assad’s autocratic government. President Obama and European leaders called for Mr. Assad to resign and pressured him with sanctions. The dictator, armed and aided by Russia and Iran, retaliated with his air force and barrel bombs, fueling a civil war in which some 200,000 Syrians have been killed and countless towns destroyed.

As has long been the case, the fighting in Syria raises tough questions and presents the United States with no good options. And Mr. Obama’s approach to the conflict remains the most inchoate element of his campaign against the Islamic State. While the Americans and Mr. Assad ostensibly share a common enemy, the two parties are not formally collaborating. Yet American fighter planes regularly invade Syrian airspace to bomb Islamic State targets. If the main threat is the Islamic State and the goal is to defeat it, might the West at some point be forced to work with Mr. Assad?

The administration says it is training Syrian rebels to assist the United States-led air campaign against the Islamic State, but those fighters will not be engaged for another few months and there are serious doubts about whether they can ever be effective. Figuring out Syria’s longer-term future is even more complicated. If, as American officials say, the only way to end the civil war and forge a common front against ISIS is some kind of political agreement that includes Russia and Iran, Mr. Assad’s major allies, and Turkey and Saudi Arabia, his major opponents, what must Washington do to strengthen its position and shape the outcome?

American officials see an emerging international consensus on the need for a long-term diplomatic solution between Mr. Assad and diverse rebel groups. There is also interest in United Nations-led cease-fires in local communities like Aleppo that might serve as a basis for a broader peace. As The Times has reported, the Russians are trying to bring the two sides into talks later this month, with the apparent aim of a more gradual change in Syria.

But it’s unclear how plausible any of the ideas are, and no one seems to have figured out how to tie these disparate pieces into a coherent game plan. That includes the Republicans who control Congress and spend their time railing against Mr. Obama’s foreign policy, though they have offered no realistic alternatives. The idea of a capable force of “moderate” Syrians that can overthrow Mr. Assad has proved to be a fantasy, even though politicians like Senator John McCain keep insisting otherwise.

Congress must, of course, have a role in advising how to wage this new war against the Islamic State. But it has shirked its duty, and after months of American military action in Iraq and Syria, it has failed to authorize or even seriously debate how this indefinite war should be conducted.

US changes its tune on Syrian regime change as Isis threat takes top priority

By Simon Tisdall


 Washington still hopes Bashar al-Assad will be removed from power, but is no longer insisting on it as a precondition for peace.

US backing for Syria peace talks hosted by the Russian government in Moscow this week is being seen as further evidence that the Obama administration has quietly dropped its longstanding demand that President Bashar al-Assad step down as part of any settlement.

Russia, supported by Iran, has consistently backed the Assad regime since the civil war began in 2011, even after the UN implicated the Syrian leader in war crimes. The US government and the exiled Syrian opposition, supported by Britain, the EU, Turkey and Saudi Arabia, have argued with equal vehemence that peace is inconceivable while Assad remains in power.

As recently as last October, John Kerry, the US secretary of state, said there would never be peace in Syria “while Assad remains the focus of power”. But now Kerry has changed his tune. At a meeting this month with Staffan de Mistura, the UN’sSyria envoy, Kerry omitted any reference to regime change in Damascus, voluntary or involuntary.

“It is time for President Assad, the Assad regime, to put their people first and to think about the consequences of their actions, which are attracting more and more terrorists to Syria, basically because of their efforts to remove Assad,” Kerry said.

Kerry’s emphasis on the terrorist threat is key to understanding the White House shift. Defeating Islamic State fighters who control roughly half of Syria and large swaths of Iraq has become the Obama administration’s top regional priority, ahead of ending the civil war or cutting a nuclear deal with Iran – though the latter aim would be advanced if Washington and Tehran can agree on Syria.

From the Russian perspective, curbing terrorism in Syria and beyond has always been the most important objective, as Sergei Lavrov, Russia’s foreign minister, reiterated in remarks prior to the three-day peace conference, which opens in Moscow on Monday.

Now Russia clearly believes the Americans have come around to its way of thinking. “There is full conviction in the west that a political solution to the crisis in Syria is inevitable,” Lavrov said.

Not long ago, a Russian-sponsored conference involving officially tolerated Syrian opposition groups, the Syrian regime represented by its UN ambassador, Bashar Jafaari, and a handful of individuals from the main exiled opposition alliance, the National Coalition, would have been dismissed in western capitals as a stunt.

But in what appeared to be an admission that both Washington’s Syria policy and the Geneva peace process launched in 2012 have run out of road, Kerry said he hoped the meeting would be “helpful”.

The state department encouraged Syrian opposition members to go to Moscow. “We’ve certainly conveyed we’d support them attending the meetings,” said spokeswoman Jen Psaki.

Lavrov said he hoped the conference, in which Russian officials will pay no direct part, would help de Mistura relaunch the UN-backed Geneva process, which stalled last year. Both the US and Russia are also supportive of de Mistura’s efforts to arrange local ceasefires inside Syria, such as that in Aleppo.

It has become uncomfortably clear to western governments that the Syrian war, which has claimed more than 200,000 lives, is stalemated and that the Assad regime remains defiantly entrenched. Russian and American analysts suggest the two countries increasingly share a common agenda over Syria: defeating terrorism, stepping up humanitarian ceasefires, and reviving the Geneva process.

While Moscow does not guarantee Assad’s personal future, it will continue to support his regime as Syria’s legitimate government in any Geneva talks. For its part, the US continues to hope Assad will be removed, but is no longer publicly insisting on it as a precondition for a peace deal.

“What’s curious about these Russian priorities is the extent to which they dovetail with White House talking points,” said analyst Tony Badran. “A year-end statement posted on the Facebook page of the US embassy in Damascus defined the US role as leading efforts ‘to meet humanitarian needs, defeat Isil [Isis], and foster a peaceful resolution to the conflict’. Nothing in there about removing Assad,” he wrote.

“Moscow has noted a completely new emphasis in Kerry’s remarks on President Bashar al-Assad and his regime, suggesting that the hitherto irreconcilable US approach has mellowed... It means that Moscow’s and Washington’s positions are no longer as antagonistic,” said Vitaly Naumkin of the Russian Academy of Sciences.

Syria’s main opposition and their Turkish and Saudi backers will not like it, but a big power consensus is building that may enable Assad to survive.

“There seems no chance that Mr Assad will leave power voluntarily any time soon or that he will be forced out by the non-Isis rebels unless the US intervenes directly, a course President Obama has rejected,” a New York Times weekend editorial commented.

“Besides, the greater threat now is not Mr Assad but the Islamic State, especially if it continues to expand in Syria, entices more foreign fighters into its ranks and uses its territory to launch attacks on the west … The unsettling truth is that the brutal dictator is still clinging to power and the United States and its allies are going to have to live with him, at least for now.”

President al-Assad to Foreign Affairs Magazine: Israel is supporting terrorist organizations in Syria

President Bashar al-Assad said that wherever the Syrian Army has wanted to go, it has succeeded, but the Syrian army cannot have a presence on every kilometer of Syrian territory, adding “That’s impossible.”

In an interview given to the American magazine Foreign Affairs which will be published on Monday, President al-Assad said “We made some advances in the past two years. But if you want to ask me ‘is it going well,’ I say that every war is bad, because you always lose, you always have destruction in a war. The main question is what have we won in this war? What we won in this war is that the Syrian people have rejected the terrorists, the Syrian people support their government more, the Syrian people support their army more.”

In response to a question on what Israel’s true agenda currently is in Syria, President Assad said that Israel is supporting the rebels in Syria, adding “It’s very clear. Because whenever we make advances in some place, they attack in order to undermine the army. It’s very clear. That’s why some in Syria joke, how can you say that al Qaeda doesn’t have an air force? They have the Israeli air force.”

Pashto Music - Gul Sanga - Yar Me Musafar Dy Warta Khat Likam

Noor Jahan - (Ghazal) - Hamari Sanson Mein Aaj Tak Woh

NOOR JAHAN,NADEEM - MUNDEYA DUPATTA CHAD MERA -

Noor Jehan - Sanu Neher Wale

NOOR JAHAN - SUN WEY BALORI AKH WALEYA

Video - Afghanistan's airforce struggles take off

Protesters Say Kabul Ignoring Growth of IS Group in Afghanistan

Dozens of activists from Afghan nongovernmental organizations have staged a protest in Kabul to call attention to what they say is the growing influence of Islamic State (IS) militants in Afghanistan.

The protesters, many of them Shi’a from Afghanistan’s ethnic Hazara minority, complained on January 23 that President Ashraf Ghani’s government is ignoring the activities and growth of the IS group -- particularly in the central province of Ghazni.

The demonstrators called for Afghan security forces to be deployed for military action against IS militants in Ghazni and other provinces.

Afghanistan’s government has denied the existence of IS militants in Afghanistan, saying militants who call themselves members of the Sunni-led extremist group are actually Taliban fighters who have changed their name due to differences with the Afghan Taliban leadership.

Afghanistan’s Interior Ministry told RFE/RL’s Radio Free Afghanistan on January 23 that the protesters' claims are being investigated and that security forces are in control.

Afghans Ponder the End of ISAF

By Franz J. Marty

Afghan views on the end of the international combat missions in the Hindu Kush.

The end of 2014 marked also the end of international combat missions in Afghanistan. Only a small number of foreign troops will remain in the country, mostly to train and advise the Afghan Security Forces with a much smaller counter-terrorism mission. No one is talking about a victory against the Taliban. Rather, officials reiterate the enduring international engagement in Afghanistan and insist that the Afghan Security Forces are, in spite of the tense security situation, up to the task of combating the insurgents. The Afghans themselves neither seem to know what they should make of all this nor what exactly they want for the future of their country. 

More than 13 years after the invasion of Afghanistan in the aftermath of 9/11 and the overthrow of the Taliban regime, an official ceremony on December 28 marked the end of the U.S.-mission Enduring Freedom as well as the NATO-led International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) mission, which had seen up to 150,000 foreign troops stationed in the Hindu Kush. Under the new NATO Resolute Support Mission approximately 12,000 soldiers will remain in the country to train and advise the Afghan Security Forces. A separate U.S. counter-terrorism mission, also new, will involve about 1,000 troops. However, according to U.S. President Barack Obama nearly all U.S. troops will be out of Afghanistan by the end of 2016.

Clearly, then, responsibility for the security in Afghanistan rests on the shoulders of the approximately 380,000 members of the Afghan National Security Forces (ANSF) and the Afghan National Police as well as the substantial but unknown number of agents of the National Directorate of Security, the infamous Afghan intelligence agency.

In a speech on New Year’s Day at another ceremony for the transition of responsibility to the ANSF, Afghan President Ashraf Ghani emphasized that the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan is ready and determined to secure peace and fight terrorism, but that the support of international troops will be needed. Ghani added in an interview with the American channel CBS that it would be wrong to be dogmatic about deadlines and that the decision on the timing of the complete drawdown of international forces should be open for re-examination. 

No Clear Opinions…

Asked about their opinion of the end of the international combat missions and the withdrawal of the majority of foreign troops from Afghanistan, Afghans in Kabul almost never have a clear answer.

In the restaurant of the Hotel Pashtunistan, which overlooks the dirty trickle that is the Kabul River, Jalal, a sturdy man with a wavy beard and traditional clothes including the Afghan round woolen hat, says that there were only 128 Americans on the ground when they, together with the resistance fighters of the United Islamic Front for the Salvation of Afghanistan, better known as the Northern Alliance, overthrew the Taliban. The thousands that have come to Afghanistan since then have, on the other hand, not been able to defeat the insurgents. Nonetheless, this former Northern Alliance fighter thinks that the troop withdrawal is premature, and that the security situation will deteriorate. Jalal’s companion, a gaunt, greying doppelgänger of the legendary former Northern Alliance leader Ahmad Shah Massoud, interjects that the Afghan Security Forces have enough men. The international community has only to supply them with equipment and weapons.

Another man, clean-shaven with a dark green Afghan robe, seems – like so many of his fellow countrymen – to generally oppose the presence of international troops in Afghanistan, only to concede seconds later that Afghanistan needs the help of international troops. However, he insists that the British and the Americans have to leave; Germans and French on the other hand are welcome. The reason for this selectivity is the grudge that the Afghans still bear against the British for the Anglo-Afghan Wars of the 19th century; the Americans are, at least in the view of this man, to blame for the intensified civil war of the 1990s.

By contrast, Ahmad Jawed, who for years worked as an interpreter for U.S. Special Forces and is known as AJ, says that 80 percent of Afghans, himself among them, supports the continuing presence of international troops in Afghanistan. Afghans would strongly favor a long-term stationing of international troops, he argues, if it could bring security and development to their homeland. In this context, Jawed says that the Afghan Security Forces are dependent on the support, especially the air support, of international troops. The 13,000 foreign soldiers remaining are, in his opinion, far too few to ensure security. He believes that at least 50,000 would need to be stationed all over Afghanistan. Should there be a complete withdrawal of international troops from Afghanistan in the near future, AJ is convinced that the country would again fall under the reign of the Taliban or terrorists like Al Qaeda or, like Iraq, be overrun by the self-declared Islamic State of Iraq and Syria.

Members of the ANSF themselves are also split in their opinions. Some are convinced that they will defeat the insurgents; others agree with the acting NDS Director, Rahmatullah Nabil, who argues that the ANSF lacks the necessary personnel and equipment.

… And Many Conspiracy Theories

However, asked about their opinions on the withdrawal of international troops, Afghans will often drift off into conspiracy theories that have almost nothing to do with the withdrawal. For example, one man states that the majority of Afghans think that 9/11 was a scheme cooked up by the Americans themselves. Another, Nasrullah, recounts in a teahouse near the local bazaar that Americans have no interest at all in a peaceful Afghanistan. According to him, the American all along just intended to use Afghanistan as a base for possible operations against Iran. But instead of explaining why the Americans would in that case be pulling out of Afghanistan, he prefers to talk about the martyr Ahmad Sha Massoud, as if he could step out of the tapestry on the wall of the teahouse and save Afghanistan.

Back in the Hotel Pashtunistan another group explains that the Americans not only support the Afghan government and Security Forces, but also, through the Pakistani government, the Taliban and the insurgents. Why the Americans should do this intentionally, as the men claim they do, remains unclear, but this group is convinced it is true. Two old men with grey beards and turbans are not going that far. However, they say that Afghans are brothers and would never fight and kill each other. According to them, the insurgents are all fanatic foreigners, mainly Chechens. Listening, one wonders how Afghanistan’s bloody civil war could ever have happened.

Finally, the old bearded tea brewer just looks wearily to the ground and says, slightly shaking his head, that with the withdrawal of the international troops things in Afghanistan will not get better. For all their diverse opinions, distaste for foreign troops on their soil, and absurd conspiracy theories, this is a feeling that many of his war-weary countrymen seem to share. Maybe a reason for hope is the fact that the majority of international troops left months ago and the situation has not really changed much. And perhaps some international troops will stay on beyond the end of 2016, especially as this is what Afghan President Ashraf Ghani seems to want. His countrymen would not, it seems, be all that troubled by the prospect.

PAKISTAN’S ONGOING EXISTENTIAL CRISIS – ANALYSIS

By Dr Subhash Kapila

Pakistan’s existential crises generated by Pakistan Army’s repetitive onslaughts on Pakistan’s democratic fabric are widely recognised. Constitutional abdication once again stands forced by the Pakistan Army on PM Nawaz.

In wake of TTP suicide attack on Peshawar Army Public School, the Pakistan Army instead of shouldering responsibility for its institutional inadequacies deflected Pakistani public reaction and outcry by demanding a Constitutional Amendment for setting-up Special Military Courts for trial of terrorists.

Pakistan Army’s not so subtle manoeuvre in this direction is nothing but a “Back-Door Coup” in which Constitutional organs of the Pakistan nation-state like the Prime Minister, the Government and the Pakistan Supreme Court stand short-circuited and by-passed. Implicitly and effectively, the Pakistan Army Chief and his generals have taken over the administration of Pakistan.

Regular readers would recall that at the height of Imran Khan and Qadri’s protest movement besieging the government of incumbent PM Nawaz Sharif I had pointed out that this prolonged besieging of Pakistan Parliament and government offices in Islamabad was a Pakistan Army facilitation as a prelude to a possible coup or a soft coup. What has occurred in the wake of Peshawar suicide bombings was a subtle operation by the Pakistan Army without sending soldiers on the streets forcing PM Nawaz Sharif to virtually hand over effective reins of government to Pakistan Army Chief.

To give respectability to this insidious manoeuvre Pakistan’s polity was scared by the Pakistan Army General into passing the 21st Constitutional Amendment approving the setting-up of Special Military Courts for trial of all terrorism-related crimes. The Pakistan Army Act was also suitably modified.

Preposterous is the reality that with PM Nawaz Sharif having been returned to power on a solid majority and with the Pakistan Supreme Court in recent times asserting with judicial activism, the Pakistan Army had no faith in these Constitutional organs of the Pakistan State and goaded the political establishment for setting-up Special Military Courts. The Pakistan Army Sharif has done-in the Political Sharif.

The Pakistan Army would have gone in for a regular military coup and declaration of Martial Law except for the fear of international backlash and withholding of billions of dollars of US and Western aid.

The Pakistan Army Generals were smarting under the perceived insult of General Musharraf’s trials in civil courts and PM Nawaz Sharif’s conciliatory gestures towards India and hence all these contrivations. Further, the solid image of the Pakistan Army was being dented in public perceptions beginning with US liquidation of Osama bin Laden deep in the midst of Pakistan’s major military garrison and thereafter continuing terrorism attacks.

The question that arises is as to why the Pakistan Army never made demands for Constitutional Amendment and setting-up of Special Military Courts earlier when right from Karachi to Lahore similar suicide bombings had taken place?

The second question is more major and profound. Is Pakistan condemned to alternate currents of Pakistan Army’s political interventions and control and aborting democracy taking roots in Pakistan which recently showed promise when governance passed from one political regime to another through the ballot box rather than bullets?

Does this plague of Pakistan Army military interventions and short-circuiting of democratic transformation not represent that the Pakistan nation-state is in an existential crisis? Would then not the question be ceaselessly asked regionally and globally that how long Pakistan can survive as a nation state with such debilities?

Pakistan’s existential crisis has been the subject of incessant debates in the strategic community and strategic analyses. Moreso, concerns arise because Pakistan is a rogue nuclear weapons state with the nuclear triggers in the hands of an adventurist Pakistan Army. They can be expected to act impulsively and brashly without caring for the consequences.

Reflective of the above was an interesting scenario of “Pakistan 2018” included in an article in the British newspaper ‘The Telegraph ‘of September2010 which spelt out that in 2018 as Pakistan returned to civilian rule after five years of military dictatorship, the Pakistan Army refused to hand over the codes and keys for the nuclear arsenal. The ousted Pakistan Army also seized missiles silos with the Pakistan Army splintering into those supporting the civilian regime and those unwilling to take orders from the civilian Government. The latter join the Taliban in Afghanistan and resort to cutting off of supply routes to US Forces remaining in Afghanistan

In response a UN Coalition led by US Task Forces with support from Chinese Task Force attack Pakistani missile silos. But the Pakistani Army rebels manage to launch two nuclear warheads towards Mumbai which are intercepted and destroyed by US Forces. The UN Coalition Forces eventually defang Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal

The above is not a far-fetched alarmist scenario and requires serious consideration by United States, Russia and China as major powers as to how Pakistan Army’s nuclear arsenal is de-fanged to prevent doomsday scenarios. How can China guarantee that a 9/11is not repeated on China by Pakistan based radicals supporting their co-religionists in Xinjiang?

Even ardent supporters of Pakistan within the US strategic community now express doubts over the survival of the Pakistan nation-state. Their logic is that if Pakistan stood partitioned by emergence of Bangladesh within 24 years of the first partition what guarantee is there that with the uninterrupted crumbling of Pakistani governing institutions currently underway that Pakistan could survive as a nation-state in the coming 36 years.

It needs to be highlighted that Pakistan’s existential crisis underway is m not the handiwork of any Indian diabolical plot but the havoc wreaked by the Pakistan Army on the survival of democracy and democratic institutions in Pakistan. This author has been propagating that ‘Pakistan’s Democracy is a National Security Imperative for India” in his SAAG Papers so entitled.

Concluding it needs to be stressed that Pakistan’s long entrenched strategic patrons like the United States, UK and China would have to re-write their strategic narratives on the Pakistan Army if Pakistan has to be retrieved from its ongoing existential crisis before it irretrievably stumbles into an abyss with dangerous implications for the region.

Pakistan - ANP asks govt to launch operation against Punjabi Taliban

Awami National Party (ANP) General Secretary Mian Iftikhar Hussain asked federal government to launch military operation against Punjabi Taliban and search out their hideouts in every part of the country.

He was addressing on the death anniversary of Abdul Wali Khan and Bahca Khan.
Central leader and MNA Ghulam Ahmad Bilour, Provincial General Secretary Aimal Wali Khan, ANP provincial leader MalaK Ghulam Mustafa were also present on the occasion.

Iftikhar said that Punjabi Taliban are well-educated and more dangerous than other terror outfits and whenever they launch attacks they are well dressed wearing in forces' uniform.
He said that militants operating in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa are the disciples of Punjabi Taliban.

ANP leader added that government should register all seminaries and there should be no distinction between 'good and bad' Taliban.
He also called for a probe into the bank accounts of terrorists.

He recalled that their forefathers were against Taliban from the very beginning and were against intervening in the affairs of others but their opinion was undermined and that is why the country is facing brutal terror war.

ANP leader and MNA Haji Ghulam Bilour while addressing on the occasion paid tributes to their leaders and said that Bacha Khan was not only a political leader but was also a great reformer.
He preached unity of Muslims against imperialist powers.
He said that the philosophy of Bacha Khan is an open guideline for the nation.

ANP Information Secretary Sardar Hussain Babak said that ANP supported military courts for the cause of the country and elimination of terrorists.
He said that government must launch strict action against Punjabi Taliban.

He also criticised the federal government for changing the trade corridor from Kashghar to Gawadar.
He said that Pakhtuns will not tolerate changing of this trade corridor and indiscriminate treatment.
  ANP leader paid glowing tributes to the martyrs of Army Public school Peshawar and said that the sacrifices rendered by the school children will be written in golden words of history.

Pakistan - Airstrikes kill 35 militants in NWA

The Pakistan Army on Sunday said airstrikes have killed 35 militants near the northwestern Afghan border.

An army statement said the strikes took place in the town of Datta Khel, in the North Waziristan tribal region.

The army has been conducting a major offensive in North Waziristan since June 2014. The military claims to have killed over 2000 militants and lost nearly 200 soldiers in the operation.

The lawless tribal region has long been a haven for local and foreign militants. It is off-limits to journalists, making almost impossible to verify the facts independently.

Pakistan's Education in shambles - Ghost Teachers

Education has always been low in the pecking order of Pakistani politics. Like an invalid on a wheelchair, education reform is rolled out periodically, shown to people, and then rolled back into the depths of its hiding place. Successive governments have failed so spectacularly that Pakistan is in a dire educational crisis at the moment. Pakistan has almost 5.5 million children in the 5-9 age bracket who are not in school, the second highest number in the world. The country also had the third highest number of illiterate adults in the world. Furthermore, it scores low on enrolment, dropout rates, academic performance and literacy indices. Unsurprisingly, very little is to be expected from the government’s decision to launch an “education emergency”, apart from the fact that at least the correct vernacular is being used for the situation’s gravity.
The government plans to hold an enrolment drive and increase the education budget to 4% of the GDP, but recent reports show that throwing more money at education is not the solution. The Sindh government has grandly unveiled successive increases in the annual education budget, yet Sindh’s education is in shambles. 13,500 (28%) of the total 47,394 public schools in Sindh are situated in virtual ruins – if there is any structure at all. Over 23,000 (49%) schools still function without basic facilities, such as electricity and drinking water, another 20,212 (42%) without washrooms, and more than 18,938 (40%) without boundary walls; all this despite earmarking 22% of the budget, which amounts to Rs149.4 billion, for education. Where does all this money go? Apparently, into the pockets of teachers teaching empty classrooms and staff maintaining non-existent schools. Less than 10% of the budget goes into developing or maintaining schools, the other 90% is swallowed up by salaries and related expenses. NGO’s estimate that Sindh alone has 40,000 ghost teachers; people who are ostensibly paid for “teaching” yet have never set foot in a classroom. No wonder the Sindh government is so eager to increase the education budget. A larger budget would only further line the pockets of corrupt officials in this lucrative profession, not reach the actual schools.
This shameful situation is mirrored in other provinces in a similar degree. Enrolling more students will be pointless if their institutions have no facilities or staff; the dropout rate would remain unchanged. Instead of bandying about generic education reform policies, focused around increasing funding, the government needs to overhaul the system. It needs to be released from the clutches of bureaucracy and be given an effective oversight system, it needs to be pruned of ghost teachers and be given ample development funds. The government has declared an emergency; it needs to act like it too.

Pakistani textbooks and the lies they teach

I recently went through with some textbooks and it was really depressing to find that Pakistani textbooks cannot mention Hindus without calling them cunning, scheming, deceptive or something equally insulting

A few days back I had the opportunity to meet up with some school, college and university students. I asked them about Pakistan-India relations and, sadly, all of these students believed that people living in other countries, especially India, were the enemies of Pakistan. A grade seven student belonging to a private school in Lahore said that she loved her country and hated all enemy countries, especially India. I asked her why she held such a firm opinion that other countries, particularly India, were enemy countries and she replied confidently that it was all written in her textbooks and that her teachers also say so. When she was asked to point out specifically where it was written, she failed to do so. However, her assertions could not be rejected fully.

While discussing with educationists we find that they, too, say our textbooks carry content that implicitly implies that India and western countries are enemy countries. Many of the educationists sitting on the boards and bodies assigned the task of setting up the curricula religiously believe that such textbooks should be taught in schools, colleges and universities to develop Islamised or traditional citizenry. They believe that Islamisation and various forms of traditionalism are the only solution to Pakistan’s problems, even to terrorism and violence.

In 2012, a nongovernmental organisation released a research report in English and Urdu languages on Religious Discrimination in Education Policy and Syllabus, including specimens from Punjab textbooks. The report claimed that the curriculum and education policy in Punjab specifically, and throughout Pakistan generally, disregards Article 22 of the Constitution “when it comes to hundreds of thousands of non-Muslim students attending schools in the country”. The study said that the content of textbooks was visibly discriminatory against non-Muslim citizens. It is a violation of Article 20 and 25 of the Constitution of Pakistan, guaranteeing religious freedom. Article 22 of the Constitution states, “No person attending any educational institution shall be required to receive religious instruction or take part in any religious ceremony or attend religious worship if such instruction, ceremony or worship relates to a religion other than his own.” However, on the other hand, Islamiat has been made a compulsory subject for all students from grades one to eight in public schools by all five education policies since 1972. The report alleges that history books are poisoning and brainwashing young minds with systematic and institutionalised lies and bigoted teachings. A class five Social Studies textbook teaches: “India is our traditional enemy and we should always keep ourselves ready to defend our beloved country from Indian aggression.”

Also, class three students are taught that, “Muhammad Ali Jinnah felt that Hindus wanted to make Muslims their slaves and since he hated slavery, he left the Congress.” In another place it says, “The Congress was actually a party of Hindus. Muslims felt that after getting freedom, Hindus would make them their slaves.”

I recently went through with some textbooks and it was really depressing to find that Pakistani textbooks cannot mention Hindus without calling them cunning, scheming, deceptive or something equally insulting. In Social Studies textbooks it is mentioned that Hindus are extremists and the eternal enemies of Islam whose culture and society are based on injustice and cruelty, while Islam delivers a message of peace and brotherhood, concepts portrayed as alien to the Hindu.

I believe that biased material in textbooks is promoting prejudice, bigotry and discrimination towards other religions and nations. Non-Muslims are addressed as kafirs (infidels) in textbooks along with statements like “heaven is only for Muslims”. Other religions are portrayed as false and their believers as antagonists. Many history scholars have mentioned in their writings (and I agree with them) that Pakistani textbooks have preached falsehoods, hatred and bigotry against minorities and, so, unless we start a process of settling curriculum and textbook debates in the political arena, we cannot end disquiet within the curriculum and textbooks. Of course, universities should support this process by conducting independent research, for it will help in eliminating the domination of so-called experts and consultants of the curriculum and textbook reform debate.

However, other educationists believe that salient features of the Constitution of Pakistan should be made part of the curriculum of schools, colleges and universities. They feel the need for revising the civic education syllabus and expanding it to inculcate the rule of law and responsible and active citizenship in the youth. The curriculum should be revised after every four or five years and necessary changes should be made to upgrade it in accordance with the fast changing world, especially in the fields of science and technology.

The biased material in our syllabi is one of the major aspects for growing religious intolerance and extremism. It is in contradiction to the Constitution of Pakistan. Any material considered ‘inflammatory’ or ‘discriminatory’ to religious minorities should be removed from the syllabus. Unless and until young minds are encouraged to develop critical thinking and the willingness and ability to research and reach for the truth and facts, a country’s national ethos cannot become progressive with social justice and economic development of the citizen as the primary priorities.

Pakistan - Punjab comes first?

A review of the implementation of the National Action Plan (NAP) to counter terrorism by the Prime Minister’s Office has claimed that the province of Punjab is ahead of the rest of the country in taking anti-terror steps such as cracking down on militants and initiating the debate on how the media should ethically cover banned organisations and terror groups. If correct, this is a development that must be appreciated, but this is hardly the right time or the right situation to dole out congratulations. First of all, the release of this report will rekindle the suspicion people have had all along: the PML-N federal government is just too Punjab-centric. It remains under the stewardship of Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif’s brother, Chief Minister Shahbaz Sharif, a province that is the home base of the incumbent PML-N government. It has often been reported that Punjab houses a large percentage of terrorists, particularly in the south of the province, giving them safe havens from which to carry out attacks in the rest of the country. Given this ‘leeway’, in that the terrorists in Punjab have hardly been touched in the past, could be one of the reasons that Punjab has remained more or less safe from the terror threat being faced by the rest of the country, particularly Karachi, Balochistan and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa. Because of the presence of a large number of militants in Punjab, it could be argued that it was relatively easy for the law enforcement agencies to arrest many members of terror groups seemingly overnight. On the other hand, it could be because of two other reasons: the authorities knew the whereabouts of these individuals beforehand and knew exactly where to find them (but had not moved against them hitherto), or, the arrests constitute the cast of usual suspects, which means that nothing much is going to change. Whatever the case, this is no time for the government to start patting itself on the back.

The prime minister is the head of the entire country, not just Punjab. He is the leader of all four provinces, of all the citizens, Punjabi or otherwise. Yes, Punjab is important, but only as part of this extensive country. The release should have noted Punjab as a starting point in the action plan, not as an excuse for self-congratulation. This could lead to complacency and that is not what the government can afford at this critical time in our history. 

Pakistan - Worst of load shedding is yet to come

ppppunjab.wordpress.com

The people have not experienced the worst of load shedding of electricity yet which they will face within next few days as the furnace oil stocks will dwindle to exhaustion said Mian Manzoor Ahmed Wattoo, President Punjab PPP Central in a statement issued here today.

He said that the major cities of the country had been facing more than 16 hours load shedding and the rural area’s supply was dictated by the sporadic rule giving them the feelings of living in an era of pre-recorded history.

He said that the farmers were facing double jeopardy because their tube wells were lying idle affecting the irrigation of their landholdings and the good prospects of crops were almost nil.

He said that the present government was an embodiment of mismanagement, inaptness and above all lacked vision and therefore the people of this country were doomed and their hopes of good days had dashed during PML (N) government’s watch.

He said that the Chief Minister of Punjab used to boast to control load shedding of electricity within months while beating the heat with hand made fan at Minar-i- Pakistan adding it was more than one and half year now of their government but the crisis had assumed the horrendous proportion instead. It is the test of his sense of fairness and justice if he confesses his failure in public with full throated ease as he used to violently agitate the load shedding during the PPP government, he added.

He observed that he could not face the people because his duplicity had been exposed to the core suggesting that he could convenient mislead the people by uttering mendacious statements for the sake of his personal aggrandizement.

He said that his aimless goings and comings were analogous to running on the treadmill and getting to no where. Nothing was more ironical than wasting time and energy without a clear road map adding Punjab Chief Minister hurtfully represents the character perfectly.

Video - Barack Obama and Narendra Modi held a joint press conference at Hyderabad House in Delhi

India - Obama, Modi Resolve Nuclear Deal Issues

http://www.voanews.com/

U.S. President Barack Obama and India's Prime Minister Narendra Modi broke a deadlock on a long-stalled nuclear pact Sunday, with both leaders noting their "friendship" as the catalyst for closer diplomatic ties.

Hours after arriving in India, the U.S. leader said he and Modi have "agreed to deepen" their defense and security cooperation.

Modi said the relationship between the United States and India "stands at a new level." 

The deadlock has been stalling a civilian nuclear power agreement for years, and the action agreed upon is a step that both sides hope will help establish an enduring strategic partnership.

The two countries reached an understanding on two issues that, despite a groundbreaking 2008 agreement, had stopped U.S. companies from setting up reactors in India and became one of the major irritants in bilateral ties.

“We are committed to moving towards full implementation,” Obama told a joint news conference with Modi after he arrived in the Indian capital of New Delhi in a state visit. “This is an important step that shows how we can work together to elevate our relationship.”

Modi added, "I am pleased that six years after we signed our bilateral agreement, we are moving towards commercial cooperation, consistent with our laws (and) international legal obligations."

Liability issues resolved

The new deal resolved differences over the liability of suppliers to India in the event of a nuclear accident and U.S. demands on tracking the whereabouts of material supplied to the country, U.S. ambassador to India Richard Verma told reporters.

"It opens the door for U.S. and other companies to come forward and actually help India towards developing nuclear power and support its non carbon-based energy production," Verma said.

“Ultimately it's up to the companies to go forward, but the two governments came to an understanding,” he added.

Obama arrived in India Sunday for a three-day visit during which he will become the first American leader to attend the country’s Republic Day ceremony.

Modi demonstrated the importance of the visit by breaking protocol to receive Obama at the airport with a big hug.

Their talks will primarily focus on trade, but also take in security, nuclear power and climate change.

The United States views India as a vast market and potential counterweight to China's assertiveness in Asia, but frequently grows frustrated with the slow pace of economic reforms and unwillingness to side with Washington in international affairs.

Elected last May, Modi has injected a new vitality into the economy and foreign relations and, to Washington's delight, begun pushing back against China's growing assertiveness across Asia.

In a veiled reference to China, the leaders reiterated the “importance of safeguarding maritime security and ensuring freedom of navigation and overflight throughout the region, especially in the South China Sea.”

Agenda for visit

After his arrival, the U.S. president traveled to the presidential palace for an official welcoming ceremony with his Indian counterpart, Pranab Mukherjee.

Obama placed a wreath at the Mahatma Gandhi memorial ahead of talks with Modi and later, a state dinner.

On Monday, in addition to attending India’s Republic Day celebration, the U.S. president will speak at a CEO forum bringing together American and Indian business leaders.

Obama canceled a planned trip to the Taj Mahal to travel to Saudi Arabia on January 27, and will cap his New Delhi visit with a speech earlier Tuesday, laying out his vision for the future of U.S.-India relations.

Michelle Obama chooses Indian origin designer

http://www.thehindu.com/

The Firs Lady of US wore a printed floral dress and coat by Indian born Designer, Bibhu Mohapatra.

Michelle Obama, First Lady of the United States, descended Air Force one clad in a printed floral dress and coat by Indian born Designer, Bibhu Mohapatra, as she accompanied U.S. President Barack Obama to New Delhi on Sunday.

Ms. Obama is known for her occasional preference for Indian origin designers. In her earlier visit to India in 2010 she donned designs created by Indian origin American designers Naeem Khan and Rachel Roy.

Also this is not the first time the first lady chose one of Mr. Mohapatra’s works. While appearing in a show ‘Tonight Show with Jay Leno’ in 2012, Ms. Obama had worn one of Mr. Mohapatra’s collections. Mr. Mohapatra hails from Rourkela in Odisha and is based in New York.

While Prime Minister Narendra Modi appeared in his trademark Nehru jacket, kurta-pyjama and a bright orange stole when he arrived at the airport to receive President Obama, an hour later at the Rashtrapati Bhawan he appeared in a black ‘bandhgala’ suit.

Video - Obama, Modi Cite Progress Toward Nuclear Ties

Video - Obama arrives in India ahead of National Day events