ISLAMABAD:

The country’s top civil and military leadership took heads of all parliamentary parties into
confidence over steps taken to counter Indian aggression during a specially-convened meeting at
the Parliament House on Wednesday.

The parliamentarians were briefed by Foreign Minister Shah Mehmood Qureshi and DG Inter-
Services Public Relations (ISPR) Major General Asif Ghafoor.

Army chief General Qamar Javed Bajwa also interacted with the forum. According to sources, he
received a warm welcome at the meeting for giving a befitting response to India for violating the
Pakistani airspace.

The forum unanimously expressed that they stood united against any aggression against
Pakistan, and would not shy away from supporting the government and other state institutions
unconditionally, said a press statement.

They expressed hope that those who wanted peace and stability will prevail as war was not an
option but a failure of policy.

Senate Chairman Sadiq Sanjrani and National Assembly Speaker Asad Qaiser thanked the
military leadership for their unequivocal support at this moment of crisis.

Malala asks Imran, Modi to show ‘true leadership by engaging in dialogue’

The meeting took place hours after the Pakistani military shot down two Indian fighter jets that
had attempted to violate the country’s airspace once again and also captured a pilot.

The military’s media wing later released a video of the pilot, who introduced himself as Wing
Commander Abhinandan Varthaman bearing the service number 27981.

Opposition Leader in National Assembly Shehbaz Sharif and Pakistan Peoples Party co-
chairman Asif Ali Zardari among other key opposition leaders were part of the meeting also
attended by Foreign Secretary Tehmina Janjua.

Briefing the lawmakers on decisions taken at a meeting of the National Command Authority,
Qureshi said the government had already apprised the international community of India’s war
hysteria and belligerent statements issued by its leadership.

PM to Modi: ‘Let better sense prevail’

The parliamentary leaders paid homage to the armed forces of the country for their bravery in
line with the nation’s aspirations.

Military officials said told lawmakers that the state had a clear policy against terrorism, and that
Pakistani soil shall not be allowed to be used against any other country.
Speaking to reporters after the meeting, the foreign minister said that all opposition parties were
standing shoulder-to-shoulder with the government and the armed forces for national defence.

Shehbaz, meanwhile, hailed Pakistan Air Force for the befitting response to the Indian air force.
Speaking to newsmen after the meeting, he advised the Indian premier to refrain from further
escalation.

PPP’s Khursheed Shah said no one wanted a war and urged all regional peacemakers to play
their role in defusing the current standoff.

He, however, regretted the prime minister’s decision of not attending the high-level meeting. “He
[PM Imran] had a good opportunity to give out a message of unity,” he remarked.

Senate Chairman Sanjrani, speaking after the in-camera briefing, said letters had been written to
all OIC members, apprising them of Pakistan’s reservations on inviting Indian External Affairs
Minister Sushma Swaraj to the inaugural session.

The entire Parliament, he said, was standing with the country’s forces.

Meanwhile, the National Assembly speaker said that the purpose of the in-camera briefing was
to convey a message of unity. A unanimous resolution, he added, will be approved in the joint
session of Parliament, which is scheduled to be held today.

“We want peace but will not compromise on our security… we want to give the entire world a
message that we are a peaceful nation.”

The Oil and Gas Regulatory Authority (Ogra) has suggested the government to hike prices of
diesel and petrol in line with fluctuation of oil prices in the international market.

The price of diesel has been proposed to be increased by Rs9.44 per litre and petrol by Rs4.71
per litre, a letter for March 2019 read.

The regulator has also requested the prices of kerosene oil to be raised by Rs8.06 per litre and
light diesel oil (LDO) by Rs5.12 per litre for next month.

Fuel prices marginally reduced

Ogra has forwarded a summary to the Ministry of Energy (Petroleum Division), which
recommended revision in oil prices.

If the government accepts this recommendation, then diesel prices would inflate from existing
Rs106.68 to Rs116.12 per litre, petrol from current Rs90.38 to 95.09 per litre, LDO from
Rs75.03 to Rs80.15 per litre and kerosene from Rs82.31 to Rs90.37 per litre.
The government will take the final decision on Ogra’s recommendation on Thursday.

As escalating tensions fuelled concerns of all-out war between nuclear-tipped Pakistan and India
on Wednesday, Prime Minister Imran Khan warned of catastrophic consequences should “better
sense” not prevail.

“We have said that we are prepared for dialogue on terrorism. I once again invite India to come
to the negotiating table,” the prime minister said in a televised address to the nation hours after
two Indian warplanes were shot down by Pakistani fighter jets in Pakistani airspace.

“Can we afford any miscalculation with the kind of weapons that we have and you have?” the
prime minister said, alluding to the nuclear arsenal of both the countries and asking: “If
escalation begins from here, where will it go?” He added that if the situation escalates from here,
“it will not be in my or Modi’s control”.

The prime minister talked about the horrors of World War I & II which he said were the result of
‘miscalculation’ and lingered for months and years piling misery on humanity. “Nobody had
realised where the wars will go,” he added.

It would never have crossed the mind of US military strategists that the war against terrorism in
Afghanistan would continue to rage for 17 years, he said while referring to the longest, deadliest
and costliest war in American history.

The Indian jets were shot down a day after India Air Force planes recklessly violated Pakistan’s
airspace and dropped payloads in a mountainous Pakistani village and Delhi dubbed it “air strike
on the biggest training camp of Jaish-e-Muhammad (JeM) militant group” in Pakistan.

The Pakistani military exposed India’s fictitious claim and invited “anyone and everyone –
including foreign diplomats, military attaches and UN military observers” – to visit the area
where the Indian aircraft dropped bombs and see if any training camp existed there.

Though the Indian bombs did not cause any major damage or casualties, Pakistan vowed to
retaliate against the flagrant violation of its airspace, fuelling fears of a disastrous confrontation
in the region.

“No country can allow another country to carry out action in its territory,” the prime minister
said, adding that he had spoken to the army and air force chiefs after the Indian ‘uncalled-for
aggression’ but decided to wait before retaliation as “we didn’t have complete details of damage
or casualties.

“We only wanted to let India know that we can also carry out air strikes. We also wanted to show
our capability,” Premier Imran said of Wednesday’s air strikes by Pakistan Air Force (PAF).
“Two Indian jets violated our airspace and we shot them down.”
Tensions escalated dramatically between Pakistan and India on February 14 when a young man –
a native of Indian Occupied Kashmir (IOK) – rammed an explosives-laden car into an Indian
military convoy, killing 44 soldiers.

The JeM purportedly claimed credit for the deadly attack, but India was quick to blame the state
of Pakistan where, according to Delhi, the militant group is headquartered. Premier Imran
offered every possible help in investigation, but India turned down the offer and instead whipped
up war hysteria.

“After the Pulwama attack we offered India that we are ready for any type of investigation.
There were casualties in Pulwama and I can relate to the emotions as we [Pakistanis] have seen
such attacks in the past decade. We understand how the victims would feel,” the prime minister
said.

“We said it is not in our favour that Pakistan’s soil is used [by any terrorist group]. There was no
dispute. We were ready to cooperate,” he added and regretted that the Narendra Modi
administration chose the warpath instead of dialogue.

“We should sit and talk out our issues. Let better sense prevail,” the prime minister said at the
end of his brief speech while directly addressing the Modi administration.

Earlier in the day, Prime Minister Imran Khan chaired a meeting of the National Command
Authority, which controls the country’s strategic assets, where the situation arising from Indian
aggression was discussed.

Attendees at the meeting included three services chiefs, chairman joint chiefs of staff, heads of
intelligence agencies, as well as ministers for foreign affairs, defence, finance and defence
production.

The director general of the Strategic Plans Division presented a briefing on Pakistan’s nuclear
capability.

The meeting participants expressed full confidence in the command and control system of the
country’s strategic assets, while the military leadership briefed the meeting on the operational
preparedness of the armed forces.

According to sources, the meeting decided that Pakistan would not be the first to carry out any
attack, but if India tries to impose war, then Pakistan would effectively respond.

The prime minister lauded Pakistan Air Force for Wednesday’s action and expressed full
confidence in the capabilities of the armed forces. “We do not harbour aggressive designs against
any country but we reserve the right to defend ourselves,” he said.

Five people including four Indian Air Force (IAF) personnel were killed in a helicopter crash in
Budgam district of occupied Kashmir, the same day when two Indian fighter jets were downed
by the Pakistan Air Force (PAF) on Wednesday.
The chopper was crashed in an open field near Garend Kalaan village in Budgam at around
10am, the Indian officials were quoted by The Times of India as saying. “One of the deceased
has been identified as Kifayat Hussain Ganaie, a local resident, while the identity of the other
four, who are believed to be IAF personnel, is being ascertained,” they added.

The crashed helicopter was a Russian Mi-17, said the officials in Srinagar, who had earlier
described it a fighter jet. They said the chopper broke into two and caught fire immediately.

Did not want to retaliate at the cost of regional peace: DG ISPR

Earlier in the day, Inter-Services Public Relations (ISPR) DG Major General Asif Ghafoor had
also mentioned the incident in a news conference called after Pakistan Air Force (PAF) struck
Indian targets in occupied Kashmir downing two IAF fighter jets from within friendly airspace as
the country’s armed forces struck back following unprovoked Indian aggression a day earlier.

The Pakistani forces also managed to capture IAF pilot Wing Commander Abhinandan
Varthaman after MIG-21 fighter jet was downed by the PAF warplanes. The captured pilot has
lauded the Pakistani military for the commendable treatment and rescuing him from a mob after
the crash.

Captured Indian pilot praises Pakistan Army for saving him from mob

The captured Indian pilot can be heard praising the Pakistani military officials, calling them
“thorough gentlemen” in a new video being shared on social media.

In his media talk today, the chief military spokesperson also asserted that Pakistan did not want
to retaliate at the cost of regional peace but the country had no option but to respond after India’s
air incursion a day earlier.

“The Pakistan army and air force had no option but to respond after India’s air incursion.”

For the last few years’ occasional violent incidents in India, coinciding with key events have
become rather predictable. Pulwama therefore was no surprise. With elections looming and Modi
under pressure, something was bound to happen. Accordingly, Pakistan had taken precautions
putting all necessary deterrence demonstrating actions in place. The Pulwama affair has unfolded
predictively. Within minutes the Indian government blamed Pakistan, the media picked up the
frenzy and whipped up sentiment.

A conflict between two contiguous nuclear neighbours is a dangerous option. The envisaged
political gains can be frittered away if attrition or escalation comes into play. In the Indo-Pak
scenario, it is foolish to undertake any military action without a thorough understanding of the
interactive phenomenon of escalation and escalation dynamics. As a fact, the theoretical
escalation models can only be partially applied in the subcontinent. Besides being nuclear states,
the bordering areas of the two countries have undergone phenomenal demographic changes
making a surgical strike or limiting collateral damage in population centres, a grave escalatory
step. This is compounded by a hyperactive media on both sides, capable of raising the political
temperature almost instantaneously.

Considering a ‘diversionary theory’ stage-managed set-up and strike, it can also be assumed that
the Indians are ready for escalation presuming escalation dominance. However, as the aggressor,
it would be naive to assume escalation dominance only on the pretext of force asymmetry. The
asymmetry in conventional and nuclear aspects is more applicable in an all-out war and less in
sectoral conflicts, where even a smaller force can create effects due to geographical limitations.
Accordingly, it is also almost impossible for one side to predict the escalation ladder without
overwhelming escalation dominance on one side and the lack of response on the other.
Interestingly, except for a Directors General Military Operation hotline, the two countries have
no mutual escalation control mechanisms nor any formal dialogue forum, making an action-
reaction cycle spiralling out of control, a real possibility.

Will a military strike be the end of story? The answer is ‘No’. For Pakistan, such a scenario holds
no surprise. Maintaining the strategic balance and requisite deterrence has been the cornerstone
of Pakistan’s defence policy. The development of tactical nuclear weapons and maturation of the
‘full spectrum deterrence’ concept are important steps in the same direction. Moreover, with
decades of experience in handling Indian shenanigans, the political as well as the armed forces
establishment is well prepared. Regional compulsions have trained Pakistan’s security
establishment to remain a step ahead of the Indians. Accordingly, strategic surprise has little
significance this time, as the armed forces in anticipation are already deployed. Thus the ante can
be raised in no time. All possible contingencies have been ready, updated and rehearsed for
years. From a one-off strike, hot pursuit, proactive to the ‘cold or luke-warm start’ strategy,
whatever the modality, the response is on the table. Pakistan will not blink.

As a stated policy now, Pakistan’s armed forces will respond; minimum in quid pro quo plus
(QPQP) mode. A limited or soft stance and response would be detrimental for Pakistan’s
security, as it emboldens the Indians and sets a precedence for similar adventurism in the future,
seriously eroding Pakistan’s deterrence. Therefore, rationally, the QPQP response would escalate
the situation. Escalation will not favour the BJP hardliners and will not be internationally
acceptable. It would also not be in the long-term interest of India due to economic repercussions.
The first casualty of a conflict with Pakistan would be the ‘responsible emerging power and fast-
growing economy’ tag for India. A fortnight of conflict would cost around INR2,50,000 crores
and raise India’s fiscal deficit phenomenally. The economic hit severity would cause uncertainty
for FDI and foreign institutional investors, accounting for a serious hit on the bourse and
depreciating the value of the Indian rupee. In case of a prolonged conflict, the impact would be
felt for years. The replenishment of war reserves and catering for almost 68% obsolescence of
the Indian army’s hardware would account for a rise in the defence budget for almost a decade.
This would also put an end to any downsizing and reorganising plan of the Indian army. With
this unfolding scenario, the Indians would be denied a notion of victory and the whole exercise
rendered futile, with no political mileage gained.

How will it all end? Pakistan India hostility scenarios test the conventional military and nuclear
theories to the limit and are always challenging to play out. The ensuing environment becomes
even more dangerous in the absence of any dependable and jointly-agreed mechanism for crisis
management. However, for the current environment a few probable answers can be put forward
as guiding principles. Will the diversionary theory of a hawkish Modi leadership risk further
escalation? In all probability, No! An escalation would be unacceptable from the strategic, as
well as Indian economic perspective and will be a serious blow to India’s global ambitions. Do
the Indians have the ability to dominate and control the unfolding events or is it too
unpredictable? Will an Indian conflict-termination strategy work? No! The Indians do not have
the ability to dominate and control, as Pakistan has the ability to create significant effects.
Moreover, as Pakistan’s prime minister highlighted, a unilateral termination strategy will not
work. Under the given circumstance with no international backing, one can only hope that
common sense prevails in India. Consequently, it is the Indians this time who have to tread a
very fine line. The issue is India-occupied Kashmir and its resolution lies within India. There’s
no escape from this reality!

Incidents like Pulwama only provide fresh impetus to hostility between India and Pakistan. The
unanticipated occasion, however, has seen Pakistan’s restrained response to India’s diplomatic
offensive to position Pakistan as a country of little substance and more violence. Since the
Mumbai attack that floundered the composite dialogue process, India has rejected every peace
offensive with a single aim to isolate Pakistan. The problem with this policy is that it does not
relate to the changing dynamic of regional politics, which is fast becoming dependent on the
economic corporation for survival. It also shows that India has not been able to cast off the scars
of partition from its national psychic. In Pakistan, however, there has been an awakening of a
different kind.

When Prime Minister Imran Khan assumed power after last year’s general election, he invited
India for dialogue. To dispel any doubt of the talks getting scuttled, Khan informed about the
civil and military leadership being on the same page to resolve disputed matters between India
and Pakistan with an emphasis on Kashmir. Then a letter was dispatched to India from the Prime
Minister Office with an offer to arrange for foreign ministerial talks on the sidelines of the
annual United Nation Security Council’s session. All these overtures were rejected.

Then came the Kartarpur corridor and suddenly Pakistan and India were on the same page. Not
because of their own liking, but because of the political mileage, that the religious diplomacy
offered both the countries. India is going to election in a few months, and Modi’s reputation has
been called into question after the exposure of awarding $9 billion deal for manufacturing French
jet fighters to a company with no experience to build planes. For a gloss over the corruption
charges against him, Modi is extracting both Sikh and ultra-nationalist Hindu vote by portraying
Pakistan as an enemy and a next-door friend.

The Pulwama attack has brought the Kashmir issue again to the centre stage of the world. As the
conundrum unfolded the cries about the United Nations’ report exposing human rights violations
in Kashmiris, got traction. If anything the mention of this report, every time that India puts up
any offensive to paint as terrorism the Kashmiris’ struggle for freedom, builds a case against
India.
Unless India decides to respond peace with peace — the model Pakistan has adopted — all
conflicts from Mumbai to Kulbhushan to Pulwama will remain inconclusive. The psychology of
retribution will only feed into the war hysteria.

There should be a limit to using Kashmir to get equal with Pakistan. Has anyone of late asked the
Kashmiris what they want? Have they been called on international forums to present their case?
Here one is not talking about the Kashmiri diaspora or those living on the other side of the Line
of Control in Pakistan. What is their idea of liberation? Is it alliance with Pakistan or with India
or none? Or is it liberation from their unmet needs for basic human rights that the Indian
government has failed to provide. Treating Kashmiris like enemies or as a bulwark against an
enemy has no relevance to the Kashmir solution.

The solution to Kashmir lies in talks. Joseph Engelbrecht, the international relations theorist,
argues that the decision to terminate war results from a radical paradigm shift on the part of
national decision-makers. Therefore, for any positive outcome both the countries have to look
through this problem using a completely different lens.

The prevailing impression is that since the PTI government has come into power the civil-
military relations have significantly improved. And there is a greater level of understanding and
mutual trust between them. This is largely true and the credit goes to the prime minister and the
army chief for building a harmonious and functional relationship. Circumstances and several
compelling factors have also played a major role in bringing about this change.

It was only natural that the military leadership would realise that military rule in the past had cost
the nation dearly and was a product of special external and domestic circumstances. It invariably
ended in chaos as 71 years of our history testifies. Whatever gains achieved in terms of economic
development and stability during the period military remained in power was soon lost and the
nation had to start all over again. This was evident during every transition whether it related to
Ayub, Zia or Musharraf’s period. Moreover, a military government due to its inherent nature
creates the succession problem. As a consequence military or civilian dictators prefer to prolong
their rule and either die while in position or are thrown out. Our history and that of other
developing countries like Sudan, Egypt and several Asian, African and Latin American countries
bear testimony to this assumption.

The military, however, in many developing states, including ours, wields greater influence in
areas that would otherwise fall in the preview of civilian domain. As is well known in Pakistan
the military enjoys considerable influence in the area of foreign affairs, security related matters
and even in the economy. The circumstances that preceded and followed Pakistan’s birth gave
the military a unique position of importance. Defence of the country especially against India and
later the growing insurgency and the regional situation reinforced the role of the armed forces.

Essentially its involvement remains in those civilian areas where there is either a power vacuum
or the institution considers it vital in national interest to retain a foothold.
One expects that as the civilian government becomes more functional and credible in the eyes of
its people democracy would be strengthened. And state institutions would then harmonise with
democratic norms and function within their constitutional boundaries.

Moreover, the government and the opposition parties should take the activities in the parliament
seriously. It is a matter of serious concern the way parliament has been functioning for the last
six months. Lack of diligence by the parliamentarians has given greater space and power to the
media and public to criticise the politicians. More worrisome other state institutions have
increased their influence while parliament remains dysfunctional. The irony is not that there is
any dearth of talent among the politicians it is the question of attitude and commitment on the
part of its top leadership. In this the initiative has to come from the government that is missing.
The prime minister has been conducting the affairs of the state more in the presidential style than
as the leader of the House. His absence or weak attendance has robbed parliament of its
importance. The prolonged controversy on the chair of the Public Accounts Committee and
mutual recrimination between politicians has not served the country or their own interest well.
Absence of opposition leaders from state functions during the Saudi Crown Prince’s visit was
one such example that reflected adversely on our democracy. It also deprived us of projecting
forcefully the consensus that exists across the aisle for strong relations with the Kingdom.

Democratic practices and culture within the political parties is as crucial as in parliament or in
matters of governance. The era of dynastic politics should come to an end. It does not imply that
members of the same family cannot participate in politics or hold high office. What is expected
that it should be on the basis of merit and through a genuine and transparent process of elections!
After all we have many families in mature democracies that have held the highest positions. The
Kennedys, Bushs and Clinton family are recent examples from the United States. In India, the
Nehru family for three generations had been in power. In all these cases it was through a fair and
transparent process the political leaders came to power.

In Pakistan too we have several examples where politicians from the same family have been on
high positions by virtue of their commitment and ability. Zulfikar Ali Bhutto and Benazir were
immensely popular leaders and had come to power through people’s vote. It is when favouritism
and narrow interests prevail in the election of party leaders democracy gets weakened and should
be forcefully rejected.

Pakistan’s ability to resist foreign aggression and pressures would be greatly enhanced as our
democratic institutions get strengthened.

The country is facing formidable internal and external challenges. Indian growing hostility,
Afghanistan’ precarious transition and regional rivalry between Arab countries and Iran coupled
with our weak economic situation demand political interaction between the ruling and opposition
parties both inside and outside parliament. Presenting Pakistan’s viewpoint at a press conference
by the foreign minister though necessary is not sufficient. It has to be accompanied and
preferably preceded by his briefing and in-depth discussion in parliament. This would provide
greater clarity to our policy and send a stronger message to India and the world. When national
power is diffused or suffers from factional rivalry demoralisation sets in.
Recent differences that have surfaced between the information minister and the prime minister’s
aide are not new phenomena as rivalry and competition for proximity to power are common
occurrence even in mature democracies. What is important is the manner in which these are
handled and not allowed to simmer, lest it adversely impacts on governance.

The current process of accountability and trial of our top opposition politicians is being closely
watched at home and abroad for their fairness and compliance with legal justice. And if
conducted impartially would set the tone for a more just and equitable social order.

China, Japan, South Korea, and Singapore — leading members of the worlds’ largest economies
— share three demographic features: i) their fertility rates are below replacement level resulting
in lower population growth rates; ii) their younger, productive population is shrinking; iii) their
elderly population is growing due to advancements in healthcare.

Economic growth in these countries is fuelled by new industries that require skilled human
resource, which is becoming scarcer due to current demographic trends. To sustain economic
growth, these countries are now encouraging and welcoming foreign skilled labour.

In this scenario, Pakistan’s demographics — marked by a large working-age population — can

be leveraged positively. The productive population between 15-64 years constitutes 56% the
total population. However, due to a poor industrial base, little growth in the manufacturing
sector, persistent energy crisis, weak economic management and rapid increase in population
size, we have been unable to absorb these individuals into the labour market. According to the
Pakistan Labour Force Survey 2018, the highest unemployment rate of 12% is experienced by
the 20-24 age group.

If we can identify employment opportunities outside the country, train and export our surplus
manpower, it can translate into a win-win situation. It would mean higher remittances, less
pressure on the domestic labour market, help finance foreign expenditures, import payments and
debt repayments — all contributing to an eventual economic turnaround. Pakistani remittances
currently constitute 6% of the GDP, which is hardly comparable to other countries in the region
like Nepal where foreign remittances account for 28% of the GDP.

According to recent reports, Pakistan’s manpower exports have declined by 60% since 2015, and
a 23% decline was seen in 2018 alone. To reverse this trend, our diplomatic missions can play an
important role. Our missions abroad must be well acquainted with what we can offer in terms of
skills and expertise available in Pakistan — essentially identifying where our competitive edge
lies. Finding suitable placements for our workers should be the collective responsibility of the
entire embassy staff, from the ambassador downwards, and not restricted to commercial
counsellors or labour attaches alone.

The team should start by developing favourable bilateral ties, cultivating relationships, and using
personal contacts and good networking skills to create a market for our workers. They must
gather and analyse information and report back to relevant agencies and organisations in
Pakistan about job market requirements of the host country, its specific areas of demand, its
regulations for migrant labour, and its social customs and communication requirements.
Missions must also project future employment opportunities by analysing labour market statistics
and trends and, accordingly, guide the government to strategically plan to develop specific skills
required now and in the future. For instance, an analysis of the statistics of the US Bureau of
labour shows that in the next 10 years the job volume for registered nurses, software developers,
business operation managers, landscapers and groundkeepers will grow substantially. To be
ahead of the curve, our higher education institutions, vocational skill development centres, and
relevant ministries (including Labour Manpower and Overseas Pakistanis, Foreign Affairs,
Education and Commerce) will have to work collectively to enhance our workers’ employability.
The recent formation of a task force for this specific purpose is indeed a step in the right
direction.

Apart from South Asia, there are employment opportunities worth tapping in the US, Canada,
Germany and the GCC countries. We need to develop appropriately-trained manpower and be
proactive with our diplomacy to capture a share of the emerging global labour market.

We all know about the Bombay Bakery in Hyderabad, Pakistan. It is a widely loved
establishment. People of the older generations across Sindh swear by it.

Despite the progress made in the baking business and the establishment of many more bakeries
across Pakistan which offer equally delicious products, most in the older generation insist that
nothing beats the Bombay Bakery.

Lines are formed outside the bakery every day and well before noon many of the cakes are gone.
To go to Hyderabad and not return with a Bombay Bakery cake is nothing short of sacrilegious,
insist many.

It came as a pleasant surprise when some years back we read about the Karachi Bakery in
Hyderabad, India and we marveled at the coincidence.

According to its website, the Karachi Bakery was founded by Khanchand Ramnani, who
migrated to India during partition in 1947. The bakery’s first outlet was opened in Hyderabad
and has grown into a nationwide franchise. The bakery is popular for its fruit biscuits. Unlike the
Bombay bakery, the Karachi bakery has opened up several outlets over the years,

But recent events suggest that while many can see this juxtaposition of names positively, there
are others for whom this can be a problem. A branch of the Karachi Bakery in Bengaluru, the
city formerly known as Bangalore, has now covered up the word ‘Karachi’ on its signboard after
a mob protested against the name, Indian media reported.

Some people gathered at the Indiranagar outlet of the popular Karachi Bakery to demand that it
pull down its signboard.

The Bengaluru Police Control Room confirmed that it had received a distress call in connection
with a ruckus at Karachi Bakery in Indiranagar. Subsequently, photos showing the word
“Karachi” covered up on the signboard and an Indian flag displayed at the bakery started making
rounds on social media.
Other Bengaluru outlets of the Hyderabad-based company have been receiving threatening calls
since mid-February from groups demanding that the firm should change its name or shut down
the business.

The incident comes in the wake of the Pulwama bombing in Kashmir on February 14, which
killed more than 40 Indian troops. We can only marvel how stupid some people have become.

It seems that the tables have been turned by some ironic twist of fate. It was Pakistan that was
considered to be intolerant. It was here that we would report on extremism and how certain
elements were playing havoc with the lives and property of others.

Time and again we had read or reported such incidents with a heavy heart. Such stories were
lapped up with glee by some media outlets across the border.

And now with the advent of the Modi Sarkar in India, there seems to be a drive at undoing all
that was sane in India. Time and again, friends from across the border have lamented over how
much their country seems to be changing. In the Karachi bakery case, as we have seen in several
other cases over the past few years, one has to assert their religious identity in order to survive.

In the case of the Karachi Bakery, what it seemed saved the day was not common sense but
possibly the fact that the owners of this establishment were Hindu. The manager of the Karachi
Bakery outlet told the media that the mob stayed for about half an hour and demanded that the
bakery change the name.

The manager says that the men in the mob thought that the owners of the Karachi bakery were
from Pakistan despite the fact that this has been a popular bakery for the last 53 years. The mob
left once they were satisfied that the owners are Hindus and only the name was Karachi bakery.
“To satisfy them, we put up the Indian flag,” the manager said.

Following the protests against the bakery in India, people on Twitter shared photos of the
popular Bombay Bakery in Pakistan’s Hyderabad, highlighting how the word ‘Bombay’ was
very much still there.

Senator Sherry Rehman also joined the conversation on social media, saying: “Bombay Bakery
is thriving in Hyderabad […] Nobody wants to even think of changing their name. Erasing our
past or diversity will only lead to myopic exclusions.” Let us hope common sense prevails on
both sides.

A
There has been a lot of research which shows the importance of physical health in avoiding
anxiety and depression. The mind and the body are highly interconnected. We can all make fairly
easy changes in our lifestyle to include more exercise, healthier eating, getting enough sleep,
being exposed to sunlight and so on. Research into exercise has found that it has a positive
impact on mood. Physical activity stimulates the release of endorphins in the brain to produce the
feel-good factor. Sleep is vitally important for children and adolescents to help concentration
levels. A good night’s sleep also stops people being bad-tempered and flying off the handle.
B
Having good relationships is a big part of being happy. In one study, most happy people were
found to have strong ties to friends and family and they made sure they spent time with them
regularly. You also need at least one person who you discuss personal feelings with – called
‘self-disclosure’. Just one person for a heart-to-heart is enough, together with a network of other
relationships. It’s not enough to have lots of friends just to do things with or chat to about music
or football. That deeper connection is all-important. Some people need to learn how to listen
effectively to others in order to develop stronger relationships.

C
I would recommend being completely immersed in a pleasurable activity, sometimes called
experiencing ‘flow’. The activity could be anything from doing judo to painting a picture to
playing chess. Typically, the activities require a certain amount of skill and are challenging but
not too challenging. If you are experiencing flow, you lose track of time and are immersed in the
present moment. You find the activity rewarding for its own sake. People who spend time doing
‘high-flow’ activities feel more long-term happiness than those doing things like just lounging
around or chatting online.

D
Make like Superman! Discover what your unique strengths and virtues are and then use them for
a purpose which benefits other people or your community. People who play to their strengths
(e.g. curiosity or persistence) or virtues (e.g. justice or humanity) and use them in different ways
and in different situations are happier than those who focus more on their weaknesses. In other
words, focus on the positive, not the negative, and be true to yourself. Studies in different
countries have shown that people who do this report higher levels of well-being.

The Pakistan Demographic Health Survey 2017-18 presents an improved state of child and
maternal health in the country as compared with 2012-13. However, much needs to be done in
nutrition and adoption of family planning methods. Stunting in children resulting from
malnutrition requires more focus. More children in Pakistan are now surviving early in their
childhood than ever before with under-5 mortality rate declining sharply. Currently, the under-5
mortality is 74 per 1,000 live births, down from 89 in 2012-13. An important reason for this
improvement is basic vaccination coverage with two in three children between the ages of 12-23
months receiving all eight basic vaccinations. This is up more than half of children in 2012-13.
Basic coverage was lowest in Balochistan (29pc) and highest in Punjab ((80pc), signifying the
gulf in both health services and the challenges involved. Reproductive healthcare coverage has
also improved with nearly 9 out of every 10 women between the ages of 15-49 receiving
antenatal care from skilled healthcare providers. More than half of women have their first
antenatal care visit in the first trimester as recommended by the WHO. More babies are being
delivered in formal health facilities, up from only 48pc in 2012-123 to 66pc in 2017-18. Pakistan
has one of the highest fertility rates in the region with an average 3.6 births per woman. The use
of contraceptives has stagnated around 34pc over the last five years.

Stunting remains a big challenge. Although stunting has declined since 2012-13 when 45pc
children under five were stunted, 38pc of children are still too short for their age. Obesity among
women has increased to 52pc in the age group of 15-49 from 40pc in 2012-13.
The survey was conducted by the National Institute of Population Studies with the cooperation of
UNFPA and the UK’s DFID. The results were released in Islamabad on Feb 25.

Indian news studios have virtually turned into war rooms since the deadly Pulwama attack in
India-occupied Kashmir on February 14. India, as we all know, took no time in blaming Pakistan
for orchestrating the worst attack in almost three decades in Kashmir.

Prime Minister Narendra Modi has vowed to take revenge, giving a free hand to the Indian
military to bring the perpetrators of Pulwama attack to justice.

Analysts from different backgrounds and shades have been discussing and speculating options
that the Indian army may take against Pakistan. Some suggest that the so-called surgical strikes
that India claimed to have carried out after the Uri attack in September 2016 might not be an
option since there was no element of surprise left in it.

Others have been talking about intelligence-based operations or using airpower to destroy the so-
called ‘terror launch pads’ on the Pakistani side. Few even have the audacity to discuss the
possibility of replicating the US commando-style raid to kill Osama Bin Laden.

In one TV talk show, former India army, air and naval chiefs were invited along with a retired
foreign secretary of the country. Given their firsthand experience, one expected that their
perspective would be rational unlike those who often appear on TV channels. But surprisingly
they were all saying that talks were no more an option and that India must retaliate.

Switch from one news channel to another, none of them are offering an alternative view. There
appears unprecedented consensus in India on bashing Pakistan. The discourse on Indian TV is so
venomous that even journalists who in the past had tried to maintain their independent views are
now also toeing the same line.

Those who dare to ask questions about India’s own follies and failures are branded as traitors.
Former Test cricketer and Punjab Minister Navjot Singh Sidhu faced the wrath of so-called
nationalists after he only argued that an act of terrorism committed by few individuals does not
mean the entire country is the culprit.

Despite facing scathing criticism, the Congress politician stuck to his stance but in doing so he
had to lose his job in a primetime comedy show hosted by Kapil Sharma. Farooq Abdullah, who
is a known Kashmiri politician for having anti-Pakistan stance, was declared a Pakistan apologist
when he contested the Indian claims that Islamabad was behind the Pulwama attack.

He insisted that blaming Pakistan would be a distraction from the root cause of the problem. He
advised the Indian government to talk to the young Kashmiri people and find out the reason
behind their growing alienation. Mehbooba Mufti, former chief minister of Kashmir, is now
accused of being a pro-Pakistani.
Her only crime was that she favoured a dialogue with Pakistan and urged India to accept Prime
Minister Imran Khan’s olive branch instead of resorting to any military action.

Usually, artists and sportsmen stay away from politics. But this time around even they are also
speaking the language of war. Some of the big names such as Saurav Ganguly and Harbhajan
Singh have backed the calls for boycotting playing with Pakistan in the upcoming cricket World
Cup in England. They are not only demanding severing all sporting and cultural ties but also
seeking action against Pakistan.

But the history of Pakistan-India relations shows that dialogue is the only way forward. They
went to the table after every time the two had gone to war whether in 1965 or 1971 or 1999. This
has taught us one hard lesson that every war or conflict ultimately ends up at the negotiating
table.

Surely, India is angry and is bent upon taking revenge but eventually it will have to talk to
Pakistan. India has a choice — talk to Pakistan now or after any ‘misadventure’. Saner nations
would certainly opt for the former.

What do you do, O’ what do you do? Lose elections? Lose wars? Lose face? It is not nice being
Narendra Modi today.

A young Kashmiri ploughed his explosive-laden truck into a convoy of the Indian occupation
force in Pulwama and killed four dozen soldiers. Life — and timing — of the attack would have
been so convenient for Modi had the young man not been from the same land. Why couldn’t he
have been from Muridke, O’ why couldn’t he have been from Bahawalpur or Multan or Lahore
and any darn place other than Kashmir?

What do you do, O’ Modi what do you do? It is not nice being you today.

The young attacker was one of thousands of Kashmiris who are ready and willing to lay down
their lives to avenge the killings, torture and rapes perpetrated on the people of Kashmir by the
Indian occupation force. This wasn’t always so. In fact in the last decade or so, the situation had
calmed down a notch as New Delhi had launched aggressive political moves to woo the
Kashmiris. But then once Modi swept into power and decided to bludgeon a solution out of
Kashmir. His was the rightwing nationalism; his was the ‘tough love’; and his was the uber-
Hindu politics. Blunders come in different shapes and sizes — this one came riding on a tank.
The Indian security forces killed more, tortured more and raped more. That was, after all, the
solution. Except that it wasn’t. Then Burhan Wani stepped up and ruined Modi’s best laid plans.
Occupied Kashmir went up in flames again. A new generation of young freedom fighters took up
the baton and turbo-charged their indigenous struggle. Five years later Modi may hold the land
of Kashmir, but he has lost the people of Kashmir.

What do you do, O’ Modi what do you do? It is not nice being you today.

Now India talks of war. It talks of ‘punishing’ Pakistan. Now Modi talks of retribution for
Pulwama. He talks of teaching Pakistan a lesson. But how? Another ‘surgical strike’ across the
LoC will fail because Modi has already lost the element of surprise. Pakistani forces are ready
for any ingress into Azad Kashmir. A drone attack by India is a risky proposition because it is
easy to shoot the drone down and because Pakistan can return the favour via its armed drone
“Buraq”. Modi has to decide. Does he hit targets in Pakistan from his long-range artillery guns?
If he does so, Pakistan will open up its own artillery and ‘retribution’ shall be returned with
interest.

What does he do, O’ what does he do? Launch a cruise missile? We’ve got our ‘Babur’ cruise
missile ready and waiting. Pain will be mutual. Order an air strike inside Azad Kashmir or across
the international border? Pakistani radars are warmed up, air defences are charged up and PAF
fighters are revved up. If Indian Air Force planes enter our territory, there is no guarantee they
will go back. A few downed fighter planes and a few captured pilots aren’t exactly good for re-
election.

What do you do, O’ Modi what do you do? It is not nice being you today.

You wonder: why did Pakistan have to have nuclear weapons? Why could it not have taken
Clinton’s offer of a few billion dollars and not opted to go nuclear in 1998? Today India could
have strolled across the LoC, sashayed across the international border and whacked around
whoever was available for the whacking. Life would have been so simple, so joyful and so
electorally rewarding for you. Now there’s a nuclear threshold. India’s conventional superiority
will need to balance itself against India’s conventional wisdom. You can climb up the rhetorical
ladder but what stops us from climbing the escalatory ladder?

What do you do, O’ Modi what do you do? It is not nice being you today.

You have decimated India’s secular claims; you have persecuted Muslims by policy; you have
fanned the flames of communalism; you have internationalised the Kashmir dispute through
violence; you have injected hate into your people and impregnated their minds with intolerance,
bigotry and misplaced arrogance. But now you are forced to match your deeds with your words
on the eve of your elections. Why did the elections have to take place now of all the times? Why
could this challenge not have been thrown up when mistakes could have been forgiven with
time?

What do you do, O’ Modi what do you do? It is not nice being you today.

You thought the Kashmir issue was settled. It’s not. You thought Pakistan could be isolated. It’s
not. You thought you had key global and regional powers in your pocket. You don’t. You
thought you had Afghanistan under your belt. You don’t. You wanted to open up our fault lines,
you ruptured your own. What do you tell your people? What do you tell other people? How do
you explain a war between two nuclear powers? How do you justify starting a conflict without
knowing how it will end?

What do you do, O’ Modi what do you do? It is not nice being you today.
Here’s the contrast though: you are debating the pros and cons of such questions with your
advisers while for us there is no debate. Your citizens are furiously discussing all options and
blowing hot and cold over this plan or that plan while for us there is no debate. Your media is
crossing swords and drawing blood against dissenters; your TV guests are tearing into each other
for holding different opinions on what to do while for us there is no debate.

There is no debate here because there are no two opinions when it comes to you: you fire one
shot and Pakistan will fire two. There will be no debate, no delay and no hesitation. Everyone
here is on the same page. Everyone is ready and willing. So think hard. Think deep. There are no
easy options. Lose elections? Lose wars? Lose face?

What do you do, O’ Modi what do you do? It is not nice being you today.

Published in The Express Tribune, February 24th, 2019.

One ‘Americanism’ that this blessed nation has stuck to like glue through thick and thin has been
the dictum: ‘democracy or bust’. Makes one wonder why! Given the recent events, the ‘lovers of
democracy’ are all floundering around much like a bunch of headless chickens. No wonder!
Come to think of it, for this privileged class much more than the future of democracy is at stake.

We, in the Land of the Pure, are known for making mountains out of molehills. Give us a ‘cause’
and we are bound to blow it up to unrecognisable girths.

Democracy is one such ‘cause’. Switch on the TV and you will confront a pundit singing the
praises of ‘democracy’. One side of the political spectrum has progressed from calling
democracy ‘the best revenge’ to democracy being the be-all and end-all of every worthy cause.

The other extreme, political chasm notwithstanding, constantly talk of ‘not derailing the system’.
Caught in the middle of this pincer-like situation is the proverbial man in the street who
continues to look askance at all forms of government. His principle concern, i.e. to keep body
and soul together, is yet to be addressed by the powers that be.

Democracy is today a big thing — a thing to cherish and to propagate. We have arrived at an
impasse where democracy is being equated with not just good governance but even the state per
se.

What is, or at least should be, a means to an end is being erroneously touted as an end in itself. It
is a different matter altogether what democracy of the brand being peddled around brings in its
wake. Examples abound. Take former US president George W Bush’s resolve to ram democracy
down the throats of reluctant Iraqis.

Our own horde of ‘liberal intellectuals’ has been weaned on Western propaganda. ‘Democracy’,
by that token, is bound to figure among the de rigueur words in their lexicon. In their estimation,
any person wishing to be counted among those fit to be counted must needs be an admirer of the
Western type of democracy.
What is the common man to make of democracy, then? It would be pointless to go to the good
old dictionary for a definition, since that would be banal in the extreme. Everyone knows how
the dictionary would define it: something akin to Lincoln’s well-known description of it as
“government of the people, by the people, for the people”.

Defining is the easy part; transplanting the definition on to the field — and a field as slippery as
that of the Land of the Pure — is something else.

Perhaps the most apt definition came from the pen of philosopher-poet Muhammad Iqbal who
defined democracy as a form of government based on the premise that “people are to be counted,
rather than appraised.”

The detractors often deride democracy as ‘tyranny of the majority’. Yet it can also happen that a
veritable minority can actually triumph in a democratic dispensation. The Westminster type of
democracy — so dear to our liberals — has peculiarities all its own. The ‘first-past-the-post’
British concept is, at best, deeply flawed.

If one does one’s sums diligently, it would not be far to seek that this system almost never
ensures that the winning party would be the one that polled the most votes.

As a matter of fact, it often happens for a party winning an overwhelming majority of the popular
vote to end up with a minority of members in parliament! These deviations are enough to shake
the purist’s faith in democratic institutions, such as they are.

Come to think of it, what really matters in the long run is how well a people are governed. It is
governance and the welfare of the common man that deserve top billing, rather than merely the
form of government. Good governance rather than the mode of governance, then, is what is — or
at least should be — the ultimate touchstone.

As for the situation in this blessed land, developments, hopefully, can only be for the better. For
a society at rock bottom, it can be argued, the only direction to go is up! Or is that being unduly
optimistic?

The question posed above is about climate change; the age of climate panic is here wrote The
New York Times in a special report on the subject of what mankind faced if it did not urgently
address the issue of global warming.

The heatwave in 2018 that produced the fourth hottest year in the history of the United States
killed dozens from Quebec in Canada to Japan. There were the most destructive wildfires in the
Californian history that turned more than a million acres to ash. Pacific hurricanes forced three
million in China to flee and wiped away almost all of Hawaii’s East Island.

There are many other climate-related stories from around the world. We are experiencing a
world that has already warmed one degree Celsius since the late 1800s when records began to be
kept.
Scientists have determined that we are adding Earth-warming carbon dioxide to the atmosphere
at a rate faster than any other point in history since the beginning of industrialisation.

Scientists no longer quarrel about their findings. In October 2018, the United Nations Panel on
Climate Change issued what has come to be called the ‘Doomsday’ report — a deafening,
piercing smoke alarm going off in the kitchen, as one United Nations official described the
document — outlining climate consequences at 1.5 and two degrees Celsius of warming.

They have also begun to examine the consequences of temperatures moving beyond three to four
degrees Celsius. In the latter case, the world as we know today would cease to exist. There is no
one in the already crowded Democratic field for the presidential poll of 2020 in America who
does not endorse an agenda concerning climate change. Panic has hit the Democrats in the
United States. Panic has also hit the American youth.

An initiative taken by Alexandria Villasenor, a 13-year-old girl from New York has grown into a
global movement. She is one of a group of young, mostly female, activists behind the ‘School
Strike 4 Climate’ campaign.

On March 15, with the support of some of the world’s biggest environmental organisations, tens
of thousands of kids in at least two dozen countries and possibly 30 states in the United States
plan to skip school, come out in the streets and march, and demand action.

“Their demands are uncompromising: Nations must commit to cutting fossil fuel emissions in
half in the next 10 years to avoid catastrophic global warming,” wrote The Washington Post in a
front-page coverage of the movement. “And their message is firm: Kids are done waiting for
adults to save their world.” Said Villasenor: “My generation is really upset.

The deal struck at COP24, the United Nations climate meeting in December 2018, was
insufficient. We are not going to let them hand us down a broken planet.”

A United Nations report produced to help the COP24 delegates address the issues governments
faced found that humanity has until 2030 to achieve rapid and far-reaching transformation of
society if it wishes to avoid the dire environmental consequences of warming 1.5 degrees Celsius
above preindustrial levels. The story is well known.

Humans keep emitting greenhouse gases, temperatures keep increasing, and the outlook for the
future keeps growing more and more bleak. Yet the agreement reached in December’s climate
gathering by the conferees fell far short of what scientists say is urgently required.

Government action will only come if there is willingness on the part of policymakers. That may
have begun to happen in the United States, the country that under Donald Trump has retreated a
great distance. There was a dramatic change in the United States’ political climate as a result of
the mid-term elections of November 2018.

In early February 2019 Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez sponsored the Green New
Deal that has the support of four leading Democratic contenders for the presidency. The ideas
they laid out aspired to power the US economy with 100 per cent renewable energy within 12
years and called for “a job guarantee programme to assure a living wage to every person who
wants one,” “basic incomes programmes” and “universal healthcare,” financed, at least in part,
by higher taxes on the wealthy.

But some on the left of the political spectrum were not supportive of the Green New Deal
agenda. Nancy Pelosi, the Democratic Speaker of the House, waved off the initiative as
impractical. But those who supported the effort were of the view that it had not been fully
explained by its sponsors.

For instance, Jedediah Britton-Purdy, the author of After Nature: A Politics for the
Anthropocene, made a case for the Green New Deal’s approach. “In the 21st century
environmental policy is economic policy. Keeping the two separate isn’t a feat of intellectual
discipline. It is an anachronism,” he wrote in a newspaper article. He argued that carbon
emissions are basically about infrastructure.

For every human being, there are about 1,000 tonnes of built environment: roads, office
buildings, power plants, cars, trains and trucks. Human beings have created an artificial world
which cannot survive unless far-reaching policies are adopted.

What role should Pakistan play in the renewed effort to address the problem posed by climate
change? The government headed by Imran Khan should operate at three different levels — local,
regional and international. At the local level there is an urgent need to improve the quality of air
in the country’s large cities.

This will require the removal of brick kilns that burn soft coal; the banning of burning of crop
residue after harvests; and strict regulation of motor vehicles, including rickshaws, pertaining to
the fuels they use.

At the regional level, Prime Minister Imran Khan should seriously consider convening a
conference involving all the countries that receive river waters from the Himalayas.

This would mean inviting Bangladesh, Bhutan, China, India and Nepal to a well-prepared
regional policy document to discuss and take action on.

This effort would contribute to Pakistan playing a major role at the international level. Imran
Khan has the name recognition and charisma to pull off such an initiative.