Dawn Editorials with Summary
DAWN EDITORIAL
January 6, 2024 (Saturday)
Summary
- Some senators in Pakistan are seeking a further delay
in the upcoming general elections, citing adverse security conditions and
the winter season.
- The resolution was tabled by a handful of lawmakers,
taking advantage of their peers' absence.
- Arguments in favor of the delay were forcefully
rebutted by a PML-N senator.
- The Supreme Court is determined to hold elections on
February 8, and the PML-N is now publicly opposed to any further delays.
- The actions of a few senators have brought parliament
into disrepute and risk undermining the Pakistani political system.
Article
WITH about a month remaining in the general elections, some in
the Senate seem to have just woken up to
the realisation that the polls are being held in winter and in an adverse
security environment. On Friday afternoon, as TV channels broke the news of the passage of a Senate resolution seeking a
further delay in polls, lingering fears about the fate of Pakistani democracy
were once again thrown into sharp relief.
As the names of those who had tabled the proposition were
flashed on screen, one was tempted to speculate, based on their past activities
in the Senate, who the sponsors of their latest mischief might be.
As more details emerged, however, there was some comfort to be
found in the fact that the resolution was the work of just a handful of
lawmakers seemingly taking advantage of their peers’ absence. It soon also
emerged that arguments in favour of another delay had been forcefully rebutted
by a PML-N senator, Afnanullah Khan.
With the Supreme Court firm in its determination to hold
elections on February 8, and the PML-N too now publicly opposed to any further
delays, we can continue to hope that the electoral process will continue moving
forward despite such distractions and theatrics.
It is beyond understanding why some continue to persist in this
approach. While keeping with democratic norms, they must be identified and held
to account for their repugnant actions — either by the people, exercising their
right to do so through the ballot box, or by the parties and lawmakers who have
elected them to the upper house.
Those responsible had been repeatedly warned then that the
precedent they were setting would one day cause them great regret. Time has
proven that the warning was a prescient one.
After delaying the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and Punjab assembly elections on
the pretext of inadequate security, the PML-N is now forced to argue that
conditions were much worse during elections held in 2008 and 2013. It seems we
have come full circle. One wonders what other lessons are in store in the days
ahead.
Summary
- Understanding the historical roots of Zionism is
crucial to understanding the current Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
- There have been diverse viewpoints within Zionism
regarding the best way to establish and maintain a Jewish state in
Palestine.
- Ahad Ha'am advocated for a Zionism that prioritized
coexistence and cultural revival over political control.
- Ze'ev Jabotinsky advocated for a more assertive and
militant approach, believing that a strong Jewish military presence was
necessary to ensure the survival of a Jewish state.
- These differing viewpoints have influenced the
policies of different Israeli governments over time.
- The Israeli government's current strategy of
"total victory" against Hamas reflects aspects of Jabotinsky's
"Iron Wall" doctrine.
- This approach has been criticized for being
counterproductive and for perpetuating the cycle of violence.
- The author argues that Israel needs to adopt a new
approach that recognizes the necessity of Palestinian acceptance and
coexistence.
- This would require a significant policy shift, but it
is essential for achieving a lasting peace.
Article
The overwhelming Israeli response to the actions of Hamas on
October 7 has sparked a global outcry, critical of the disproportionality of
these measures. This response, while reflective of a widespread humanitarian
concern, warrants a deeper examination within the historical and ideological
frameworks of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, particularly through the lens
of early Zionist thought.
This approach not only sheds light on the current situation but
also provides an opportunity to re-examine the underlying factors that continue
to shape this conflict.
Within this context, recent discussions suggest that Israel
might be using these events as a pretext to further its long-held objective of
a sparsely populated Palestinian territory. Importantly, the desire for a
largely uninhabited Palestine has been a subject of debate within various
Zionist ideologies.
The Gaza conflict necessitates an understanding of Zionism’s
ideological and strategic shifts. Key Zionist figures like Ahad Ha’am,
advocating cultural Zionism and coexistence, and Ze’ev Jabotinsky, championing
strong military defence, provide crucial context.
These diverse viewpoints illuminate the strategies and policies
of Israel’s contemporary governance, especially under Netanyahu’s government,
which pursues a strategy of “total victory” against Hamas, reflecting aspects
of Zionism’s early principles. Understanding these historical influences is
vital for comprehending the complexities of the ongoing conflict.
Advocating for an ethical Zionism, Ahad Ha’am prioritised
coexistence and cultural revival over political control, acknowledging the
challenges of establishing a Jewish homeland in an already inhabited region.
His work diverged from the then-dominant narrative of an uninhabited Palestine.
Israel’s
prolonged occupation of Palestine is neither sustainable nor tenable.
By critiquing political Zionism’s focus on settling Jews at the
expense of moral considerations, Ahad Ha’am envisioned the Jewish return to
Palestine as a chance for cultural and spiritual rejuvenation rather than
political dominance or displacement of Arabs.
His influential essay challenged early Zionism’s core
assumptions, advocating for a re-evaluation of its goals and methods. Ahad
Ha’am’s insights continue to resonate in contemporary discussions about
Zionism, Israeli-Palestinian relations, and the broader quest for peace in the
Middle East.
Ze’ev Jabotinsky, representing the Revisionist strand of
Zionism, acknowledged the Arab resistance to Jewish settlement. In his 1923
essay ‘The Iron Wall: We and the Arabs’, Jabotinsky argued for a more assertive
and militant approach to establishing Jewish settlement in Palestine,
anticipating resistance from the Arab population.
His central thesis revolved around the belief that peaceful
coexistence between Jews and Arabs in Palestine was unattainable at that time,
primarily due to the Arabs’ fundamental opposition to the Zionist project. He
perceived the Arab resistance to the establishment of a Jewish state on their
land as a natural and inherent reaction.
His doctrine, advocating peaceful coexistence based on mutual
recognition of strength, was controversial: seen as pragmatic for Israel’s
security by supporters but criticised for promoting militarism by detractors.
‘The Iron Wall’ has profoundly influenced Israeli policy, especially
among right-leaning Israeli governments.
In Israel, Mapai and Labour parties historically favoured
a cultural and coexistence-driven Zionism, diverging from Ahad Ha’am’s vision,
whereas Likud, grounded in Revisionist Zionism and Ze’ev Jabotinsky’s
ideology, offers a stark contrast. The ascendancy of Likud in 1977 highlighted
a significant shift towards Revisionist Zionism, characterised by the
leadership of former paramilitary leaders Menachem Begin (Irgun) and Yitzhak
Shamir (Lehi), both of whom became influential prime ministers.
The Israeli-Palestinian conflict, shaped by various factors
including the foundational ideologies of Zionist leaders, has shown the
limitations of Israel’s strategies over the decades. Israel has neither
achieved a decisive victory over the Palestinians nor pursued negotiations with
the commitment needed for peaceful coexistence.
This reality stands in sharp contrast to the era when Israel’s
statehood was an unrealised dream, and debates among Zionists were both
realistic and thought-provoking.
Today, the state of Israel faces actions that starkly contrast
with the moral imperatives that drove the Zionist movement’s initial quest for
a Jewish homeland, actions which are not only outrageous but also question the
very ethics at the heart of Israel’s creation. In light of the significant
historical developments since Israel’s formation, it is imperative for Israeli
policy towards Palestine to adapt.
Israel, established with settler-colonial roots, faces a
critical juncture where its prolonged occupation of Palestine is neither
sustainable nor tenable. The situation necessitates a significant policy shift
that addresses the conflict’s multifaceted nature. A strategic reorientation
towards long-term stability requires Israel to recognise the necessity of
Palestinian acceptance and coexistence. For a viable and peaceful future,
mutual recognition and respect between Israelis and Palestinians are essential.
Acknowledging historical precedents, such as the violent actions
of Zionist paramilitary groups like Irgun and Lehi, and understanding their
parallels with Hamas, which also resorted to violence in its pursuit of
statehood, is crucial. Such an acknowledgment could pave the way for a more
reconciliatory approach, moving beyond cycles of violence towards a framework
of lasting peace.
Summary
- Revenge is a powerful emotion that can drive people to
seek justice, but it can also become all-consuming and lead to negative
consequences.
- This is especially problematic when people in
positions of power, such as politicians, generals, and judges, are
motivated by revenge.
- Justice should be impartial and not based on personal
vendettas.
- When revenge becomes the governing principle, it can
lead to a never-ending cycle of violence and betrayal.
- It is important to remember that "what goes
around comes around" and that the tables can always turn.
Article
Revenge is a powerful emotion. It has provided a great theme to
many enduring stories over time, and for a reason. Its driving force, the
underlying motivating factor, stems from a desire to attain justice against an
injustice committed against one’s own self or those associated with the self.
It can, in a way, serve as a means of restoring the cosmic moral balance, and
also one’s dignity and place in the world.
But, at the same time, it can also morph into an all-consuming
passion, requiring a sacrifice of other principles one may otherwise hold dear.
This becomes particularly problematic when an officeholder harbours the
principle of vendetta, since the position of power can be utilised to exact
vengeance, blinding one to the demands of the office occupied. And it is even
more egregious when vengeance may have a role to play in how a judge may come
to render his decisions.
In the unique two-part movie, Gangs of Wasseypur, the audience
is treated to this raw, unfiltered emotion, palpitating and passed on from one
generation to another. Shahid Khan, first, seeks to avenge his father’s death.
And then after Shahid’s death, his son, Faizal Khan, makes his entire existence
about avenging the deaths of his father and grandfather. Timid by nature and
physique, Faizal is transformed into a force to be reckoned with due to his
thirst for vengeance.
In a memorable final scene, as Faizal prepares to finally settle
all scores with Ramadhir Singh, the arch-nemesis behind the murders of his
brother, father and grandfather, Faizal’s wife desperately implores him to
consider his yet-to-be-born child before rushing towards his own death. Faizal,
however, remains undeterred, blinded by the one real passion of his life. Even
though a loving and considerate husband otherwise, Faizal puts all else aside,
making everything subservient to his desire for revenge.
Justice must be
done with the reviled, the abominable, the abhorred.
It may be a forgivable trait in a fictionalised local gangster,
it is not an ideal governing emotion for politicians, generals and justices. As
members and sympathisers of one political party were recently hounded, members
of the other political parties openly and loudly celebrated. They reminded,
justifiably so, that they were on the receiving end not so long ago. They
endured these situations silently and stoically. And hence they jeered those
they saw crumbling as the winds, nay, gales of forceful change blew, showing
satisfaction on what appears to be a law of nature that what goes around comes
around. In recent history, one party had been provided muscle to go after all
others. Then the tables turned.
As the dismantling project proceeded, ordinary people, the rank
and file, also came within its ambit. The treatment previously reserved for the
alleged dissident Baloch and Pakhtuns was mainstreamed. Lessons needed to be
taught, which, at times, meant that even the families needed to be harassed,
threatened and humiliated. People had to be sent for visits to the northern
areas. Threats worked for the most part, but some people needed to be broken
down as well. Scores had to be settled.
Those aggrieved often had to appear in courts, with bowed heads
in front of judges, who themselves may have had a few of their own scores to
settle. The burning desire for personal revenge and justice, as a moral
principle, may, at times, not go hand-in-hand. Being a judge requires that
justice be done with the reviled, the abominable, the abhorred; that it be done
with the people who may have committed wrongs themselves, to safeguard them
against a disproportionate retribution; and more importantly, justice may also
need to be done with those who may have wronged the judge himself.
“If you prick us, do we not bleed? If you tickle us, do we not
laugh? If you poison us, do we not die?” Shakespeare’s reviled Shylock sought
to humanise himself, in front of an Elizabethan audience, which, at the time,
had a firm conception of Jewish people being unforgivably greedy and vengeful.
Shylock, in his famous monologue, also declared “[i]f you wrong us, shall we
not revenge? … The villany you teach me, I will execute, and it shall go hard
but I will better the instruction”.
If the one governing principle becomes revenge, perpetrated by
the office-holders themselves, for both real and perceived slights, then there
is a potential of it becoming a never-ending game. The only real incentive then
is to be in a position where someone seeks to avenge themselves against you,
but cannot. This may require entering deals, cutting corners and betraying all
other espoused principles. But the thing about tables is that they keep
turning.
Summary
- Free markets are not perfect and sometimes need
government intervention. This
is because they are made up of people, who have flaws and biases. This can
lead to irrational and suboptimal outcomes, such as speculative asset
bubbles.
- The goal of policymaking should be to protect the
interests of people. This means that
markets should be free to operate with minimal regulations, but regulators
must have enough power to ensure that there is no exploitation of
consumers.
- Pakistan's economy is heavily regulated and its
regulators are not independent or effective. This is a problem because it can stifle economic
growth.
- Pakistan needs to find a balance between free markets
and regulation. The right mix will depend
on the specific circumstances of the country.
- Regulators should be "inclusive economic
institutions" that protect the interests of the larger population. They should not be "extractive"
institutions that benefit a small elite.
- Pakistan needs to develop a more holistic and balanced
policy environment. This means
avoiding extreme policy swings and taking into account ground realities.
- A balanced policy environment will help to attract
private-sector investment and support stronger, sustainable growth and job
creation
Article
“Market knows everything best” is considered the most
cogent of arguments by free-market supporters. This may be true in some
instances but in most cases it’s unfounded, given the inherent imperfection of
markets. While Chicago School orthodoxy says markets produce the best outcomes
for society, behavioural economists insist that it’s humans who make markets.
This means that humans can strive to improve their functioning.
Shiller, a Yale-based behavioural economist, argues that markets
are shaped by ‘animal spirits’; individual actors have irrational
tendencies, which can be amplified by the collective mood of the market. This
sometimes results in irrational and suboptimal outcomes, such as speculative
asset bubbles.
Dr Bogan, a Cornell economist, aptly encapsulates it: “Markets
are not perfectly efficient because it’s a collection of people, and they have
flaws, biases, imperfections. And so markets aren’t perfectly efficient either”.
Even in a ‘relatively’ perfect environment, markets tend to be
imperfect. The 1997 Asian currency crises, the 2008 banking crisis in
the US, and most recently in Europe, are typical cases in point where
governments had to intervene to save falling ‘free-market players’ in the
‘larger public interest’.
The fact is that it’s the interest of
people which is at the heart of any policymaking. While markets
should be free to operate with minimal regulations, regulators must have enough
in their arsenals to ensure that there’s no exploitation of consumers, and
there should be perfect competition and a level playing field.
In Pakistan’s case, markets and economic freedom are challenged
and at the same time regulators’ independence and capacity are hampered. In
the Heritage Foundation’s Economic Freedom Index, Pakistan ranks 152nd out of
180 countries. This indicates a heavily regulated economy.
Markets must be
allowed to make money but without customer exploitation.
Our business and social maturity lifecycle is also in its
infancy and warrants a dynamic regulatory environment while keeping markets
functioning with adequate economic freedom. This makes the role of regulators
even more central and inevitable. It’s not only the re-constitution of the
economy, it’s the reprioritisation of the entire society and its actions to
create an efficient market.
As society becomes more responsible, the need for regulation
will certainly subside. However, leaving things entirely to the markets
prematurely, without a robust regulatory environment could result in
irreparable loss to a country that has over 40 per cent of the population below
the poverty line and is confronted with abject illiteracy.
We must take stock of our realities on the ground, and then
devise the required role of regulators, who would ensure avoiding distortions
through interventions necessary to keep order in the market.
There is no single economic solution or
model that works in all situations — choosing the
right economic answer depends on the circumstances of the economy and the
conditions it faces. Economics is a study of human activity with all the
emotion, ethical stands and imagination that everything human involves“.
Our policymaking pendulum, in Pakistan, swings from one extreme
to the other, with policies implemented in patches, lacking cohesion, which end
up doing more harm than helping the functioning of markets.
For example, the ambition of following the free market monetary
system whilst pursuing pro-elite, rent-seeking policies on the fiscal side,
results in market failures, leaving the tools available to control inflation
and unemployment less effective or even redundant at times. Therefore,
‘holistic and balanced’ are the functional words for all our policy actions —
from macroeconomic policy to regulating markets.
As Stefan Dercon alludes in his fascinating book Gambling on
Development: “Success does not depend simply on whether the development
process is state-led or market-led. Relevant factors are the quality of public
administration systems, and how well policies and investment projects are
implemented. Countries need to find a balance which is appropriate to their
context”.
Markets must be allowed to make money but without customer
exploitation and creating undue advantage of market failures and that’s where
the role of regulators comes in handy to protect the ‘interest of the larger
population’. It’s all about creating a prosperous, equitable, and stable
society. Regulators shall be ‘inclusive economic institutions’ and not
‘extractive’, in the words of Acemoglu and Robinson.
While law by its very nature is definitive, regulations give
regulators a wide landscape now known as “regulatory discretion”, and there’s
always a risk that the regulators are quick to frame new regulations and
resultantly over-regulate. It is also vital that the regulators assess,
contextualise and address regulatory gaps in the light of next-generation laws
and regulations.
In Pakistan, while we surely need strong regulators to tackle
market failures and protect consumer interest, a balanced policy environment is
imperative, which appreciates ground realities, instead of discretionary and
impulsive policy responses that swing from one extreme to the other. This
equilibrium certainly ensures attracting higher private-sector investment and
supports stronger, sustainable growth and job creation.
Summary
- The consecration of the Ram Mandir temple in India is
scheduled for January 22nd, at the site of the former Babri Masjid mosque.
- The BJP, the ruling party in India, is accused of
using the temple for political gain ahead of the upcoming elections.
- Some opposition parties are facing a dilemma over
whether or not to attend the consecration ceremony.
- The construction of the temple has sparked debate
about religious tolerance and the power dynamics between different
religious groups in India.
- The author argues that it is important to remember the
history of religious sites and to respect the beliefs of all religions.
- He also suggests that Muslims in India should focus on
building their own places of worship and educational institutions, rather
than worrying about the implications of the Ram Temple consecration.
Article
In a world becoming numb to desecrations, the word consecration
throws one off. It means pran pratishta in Sanskrit, akin to ‘inauguration’ in
English. In the context of the desecrated Babri Masjid, Babur is tiger in
Turko-Persian languages. And the consecration of Ram Mandir is scheduled for
January 22 at the erstwhile site of the mosque named after the Mughal
emperor. One respects the right of any religion’s followers to name their
places of worship as they wish. But as the new edifice will be a mandir or
temple, the site’s new nomenclature is likely to rattle around in memories for
a while. The mosque stood for nearly half a millennium; the temple is said to
have been designed to last a thousand years.
The BJP is accused of using religion to play divisive politics
and, therefore, the Ram Temple as another feather in its cap before the general
elections in less than four months. However, the entire gamut has its pitfalls,
and the ruling party is not alone in this quandary. Some 7,000 guests are said
to have been invited, and 3,000 among them are VVIPs, including politicians,
movie and sports stars. Some of these invitees are still determining whether to
feel honoured or ensnared – if they do not attend, their absence will be seen
as an affront to one of the most central deities in Hinduism and those who
choose to be present risk antagonising a sizeable section of the electorate,
mainly the Muslim voters.
Among the opposition, the biggest challenge is faced by the
Congress party. While the BJP basks in the glory of taking up the temple
project, it is Narasimha Rao of the Congress who allowed the mosque to be razed
during his premiership. Neither old hardliners such as L.K. Advani and M.M.
Joshi or the Modi-Shah combine could have done it if it was not for Mr Rao, who
thought that by ‘letting it happen’ he would take the wind out of BJP’s sails
forever.
Congress president Mallikarjun Kharge and Sonia Gandhi have been
invited to the inauguration. But, so far, the grand old party has not arrived
at a decision. Its second-tier leadership did test the waters with statements
like “What objection can there be? Sonia ji is very positive about this. Either
she will go, or a delegation from the party will attend.” Other than the Communist
Party of India (Marxist) which declined citing the constitution’s secular
nature, West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee is the only front-liner to
have unequivocally turned down the invite. However, the temple template is
certainly gaining political currency as Ms Banerjee has allocated 100 crore
rupees for the construction of a replica of Jagannath Puri temple in Odisha, scheduled
to be inaugurated in her state within six months.
When power
changes hands, many a place acquires new identities.
Prime Minister Modi visited Ayodhya on Dec 30 to inaugurate a
new airport and revamped railways. After all, pre-victory rousing of the crowds
for power politics is spectator sport of full contact variety. Hence, the
atmosphere around the temple consecration is such that Ayodhya’s five-star
hotels are reportedly cancelling more reservations than they are making to
accommodate the government-sanctioned VVIP brigade.
Moral equivalence is never a good idea. But to underline the
nature of political power, let us remember that the one who pays the piper
calls the tune. When power changes hands, many a place acquires new identities.
Hagia Sophia in Turkey is a recent example. A sixth-century cathedral turned
into a mosque in 1453, a museum in 1935, and a mosque again in 2020. There was
an outcry against Tayyip Erdogan’s decision to turn the Unesco heritage site
into a place of worship for Muslims. The Turks remained unmoved, and master
architect Mehmet Yilmaz’s decade-long research has identified more than 300
Ottoman mosques, shrines, and seminaries throughout Europe that have
been turned into churches and bell towers. On the other end, the joint
administration of Jerusalem constantly remains under discussion as part of the
two-state solution to the Palestine issue.
The entire subcontinent is dotted with mausoleums built over
samadhis and vice versa. The shrine of Udero Lal, more commonly known as Jhuley
Lal in Sindh, is jointly managed by Muslims and Hindus because he has disciples
from both faiths. So, as we remind ourselves of the importance of tolerance,
coexistence, and respect for religious beliefs, let us also remember the power
dynamics. The best laid plans continue to bear unintended consequences. Before
we concern ourselves with what the Ram Temple consecration could mean for
Muslims in India, we should consider whether this would have come to pass had
there been 600 million of us in India. Nothing stops us from building mosques,
mandirs, gurdwaras, churches, fire temples, and seats of learning to commemorate
the past and herald an inclusive future.
Comments
Post a Comment