Dawn Editorials with Summary

 


DAWN EDITORIAL

January 6, 2024 (Saturday)

Delay Talk

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.

The less said about these senators’ ‘adventure’, the better. The actions of a few bad apples have brought parliament into much disrepute over the last few years. The wilful abandonment of the Constitution — the source of all lawmakers’ relevance and power — has the potential to destroy the entire edifice of the Pakistani political system.

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.

Lastly, it must be said that Senator Afnanullah’s speech inspired a fair bit of melancholy. It was both sad and satisfying to see a PML-N leader making the same arguments against delaying elections that had been made last year by many well-meaning citizens as they exhorted the PDM-led government and the ECP not to abandon the constitutional scheme on election timelines.

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.

Zionism’s ideological shifts

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.

Zionism, as a movement, encompassed diverse views on Palestine and its inhabitants. Contrary to the popular Zionist slogan “for a people without a land, a land without a people”, not all within the movement agreed with this sentiment. Ahad Ha’am, in his 1891 essay ‘Truth from Eretz Yisrael’, recognised Palestine’s existing Arab population, critiquing early Zionist settlers for overlooking this fact and cautioning that such disregard could lead to future conflicts.

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.

Jabotinsky advocated for an “iron wall” of Jewish military strength as a defence against Arab resistance, believing that Arab realisation of their opposition’s futility would lead to acceptance of a Jewish presence and possibly, peaceful coexistence. This view, underscoring the inevitability of Arab resistance and the necessity for a strong defence to establish a Jewish state, left room for future negotiations but only from a position of Jewish dominance.

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.

Settling Scores

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.

Victims of our own narrative

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.

The worst situation is where there’s no regulator or government agency — significantly lacking expertise (like E&P, agriculture, etc) and at times having a conflict of interest of sorts (like CAA, FBR, etc) — to act as regulators. A serious effort is warranted to alleviate these conflicts; establishing regulators where they’re missing, and building requisite capacities and expertise where they exist, making them independent and centres of excellence.

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.

Ha-Joon Chang in Edible Economics states: “We fundamentally go wrong when we start stating economics as a science. The critical thing to keep in mind here is that economics is not a science; there are no perfect provable answers.

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.

Modesty is the key and balance is a necessity. Human nature is a reality; people, nations, and markets are unique, and their maturity life cycles are distinct. The right mix of free markets and regulation is needed based on the specific environment. The line must be drawn by the government to ensure that regulations and timely actions shall only come into force to protect the interest of consumers; otherwise, let the markets operate freely.

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.

Temple template

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

Popular posts from this blog