The Case For New Provinces

Interview -- Former president Pervez Musharraf

By Amir Zia

Monthly Narratives

December 2017  

For most mainstream political parties, the creation of new provinces in Pakistan is not an option at all. Nonetheless, there are some powerful voices who have been increasingly advocating this cause.

Those seeking the creation of new provinces in Pakistan, believe that it would improve governance, devolve power to the grassroots level and help deal with the challenge of narrow provincialism and ethnic-based politics. That’s the reason they cite for the formation of new provinces along administrative lines rather than ethnic considerations.

However, implementing any such decision is easier said than done because of the sensitivities involved. For the old guard politicians, whose vested interests are solidly linked to the existing order, it is a firm ‘no’ as they maintain that Pakistan comprises the federating units, which decided to join Pakistan at the time of independence. They hold provincial boundaries as sacred.

But it is also true that the existing political order has failed to resolve basic contradictions of the country, including the settlement of issues pertaining to the distribution of resources, the devolution of power or providing a corruption-free and pro-people government.

In other countries, the creation of new administrative units is not considered taboo. New challenges and changing circumstances keep introducing innovative ideas and new solutions. Can this be done in Pakistan? Does Pakistan need new provinces? And the billion dollar question; how can new provinces be created?

Given Pakistan’s polarised politics, dominated by the Panama and ‘Aqama’ scandals, such issues are not high on the agenda of the majority of big players.

General (retd) Pervez Musharraf, the former president of Pakistan, talks to Narratives on why Pakistan needs new provinces. Narratives presents extracts from his interview.

***

-- A number of times, you have said that one of your regrets remains that you did not create new provinces. Why do you think new provinces are needed in Pakistan?

Any structure of governance should ensure maximum decentralisation. This is vital not just for Pakistan, but in any country focused on the welfare and well-being of its citizens.

In Pakistan, creating new provinces is necessary because it’s the demand of the people. There are two sets of problems. The first one is related to Punjab, which unfortunately is the actual bone of contention. Punjab is the largest province in terms of population, which results in its dominance in the country’s politics.

As a result, smaller provinces have developed a sense of deprivation and they often unnecessarily accuse Punjab of exploiting the country’s resources. Even the Pakistan Army is often labelled Punjab’s army, which is an incorrect perception.

The second issue is that many people tend to view the problems being faced by them from an ethnic point of view, though we should see it from Pakistan’s perspective. This simply means bringing an improvement in governance.

Another key dilemma for Pakistan is that because of four huge and powerful provinces, the centre, or federation, has become weak. I believe that the centre should be powerful, while provinces should be administratively strong for efficient governance. This is possible only if we have more provinces. Creating new provinces is not a big undertaking, but we should keep in mind the sensitivities. For this, a think tank must be set up to examine the issue minutely and thoroughly.

-- When you were in power, what prevented you from creating new provinces?

When I took charge, I had other pressing issues; fixing the economy, for example, was a big challenge at that time. Then came 9/11 (terrorist strikes in the US), which diverted our attention from other key issues.

If we had taken up the issue of creating new provinces at that time, which I understand is very sensitive, I wouldn’t have been able to turn the economy around. But countries that are unable to deal with such sensitive issues lag behind in the race of progress and development. I realise we should have tackled this issue as well, but since there was so much to do, I thought it appropriate to avoid it at that time.

-- There’s a lot of resistance to this idea from small nationalist groups as well as traditional political parties. How do you suggest executing such a plan?

I realise the sensitivity of the issue. It can be resolved if an interim government with a strong backing of the Supreme Court and the army is empowered to amend the Constitution. But it should be done ensuring that there are no ethnic divisions, which would lead to disputes. New provinces should be carved out on administrative lines.

-- Do you think provincial boundaries are sacred as some ethnic and sub-nationalist forces tend to perceive?

Indeed there are sensitivities and sentiment involved. Take Sindh, for example. Stakeholders there think that Karachi should not be given the status of a separate province, which is right. While Sindh’s grievances are justified, we have to think how the province can be divided into smaller units without triggering ethnic rivalries. The same goes for other provinces.

-- Dr Tahir-ul Qadri once suggested that new provinces be created on the basis of existing divisions. This he believes will help devolution of power to grassroots level. Is it a workable solution? 

Yes, this is one of the solutions. But just one person cannot solve the matter. We need to have input from all quarters before making any decision.

-- Will smaller provinces help curb provincialism and result in better governance, given the fact that these two issues have remained a bane in our politics?

You are absolutely right. If we have more provinces, the utilisation of funds will be much more effective and the people of that area will certainly benefit economically. This would lead to their overall prosperity and well-being. At the same time, the centre will also become strong.

-- After the 18th Amendment, education along with other key departments, has also been handed over to the provinces. As a result each province now has its own curriculum. Don’t you think the centre should keep a few departments, such as education, under its control which is vital for national cohesion?

When I formed the district governments under the local government system, we decided that the primary and secondary level education would be run by the district governments. A councillor at the district level would be in charge of everything – teachers’ postings, their recruitment, school attendance, while the province would be responsible for college education. The Higher Education Commission would look after university education. Our education system was in very good shape by virtue of these measures.

-- Currently one province – Punjab – decides who gains power at the centre. Will new provinces help change this pattern?

Absolutely. And that’s precisely the reason why smaller provinces crib against Punjab.  So if we are not heeding the grievances of other provinces, then we are behaving like ostriches. Unfortunately, our political leadership is blind and deaf to such bitter realities.

-- A debate is raging these days about FATA’s (Federally Administrated Tribal Areas) merger with Khyber Pakhtunkhwa. Your thoughts on this issue?

We should not have a piecemeal approach to this issue. We have to resolve the issue of new provinces once and for all. Going by its geography, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa is a long province which runs from Pakistan’s frontier with China, Chitral and going down to Zhob in Balochistan. Those who say that FATA should become a province are not being practical. It starts from Bajaur Agency and goes through seven agencies, up to South Waziristan. However, the need of the hour is to make more provinces and deal with this issue in one go.

-- Have you identified the forces in favour of crafting new provinces?

Frankly, I haven’t identified such forces in detail, let alone establishing contacts with any party on this issue. But in hindsight, I believe I should’ve done that . . . it’s an important issue and must be discussed and debated at the national level.

-- One of the major achievements of your government was setting up of an empowered local government system, but this reform has been undone by the major political parties. Why do our traditional parties stand opposed to powerful local bodies?

Because of personal vested interests of MNAs and MPAs. Politicians get billions of rupees worth of funds in the name of development for their constituencies, and they have often used or pocketed at least a big chunk for themselves. We, in contrast, granted councillors administrative, political, and, most importantly, financial authority. When we decentralised the system, public sector development funds were given directly to the 110 districts. In developed countries like the United States and England, mayors are empowered and run the show, but sadly in Pakistan they have been made powerless.

Challenge from Within

By Amir Zia

Monthly Narratives

December 2017

Most Muslim countries which are victims of terrorism are being targeted by Sunni militant groups – ranging from Al-Qaeda and Daesh (the Islamic State) to the Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan and Boko Haram. The other fringe and shadowy militant groups – operating in the Middle East, South Asia and Central Asia – are also predominantly Sunni Muslims. So it is natural that the Sunni Muslim states feel the strongest need to band together against this common threat.

Terrorism is a global challenge, but it is the Muslim world which has suffered, and continues to suffer, the most at the hands of terrorists. Extremist mindsets and terrorist ideologies are not just spreading death and destruction in many Muslim lands, but tearing them apart, as violent non-state actors try to force regime changes or bring down some of these states altogether.

From suicide bombings to cold-blooded murder and other heinous acts of violence, terrorists use and abuse the sacred name of Islam to justify atrocities against fellow Muslims. At the core, it is essentially Muslim countries, which serve as the real battleground between moderates and those flaunting a flawed and distorted version of Islam.

Any terrorist attack in a Western capital triggers a global debate on terrorism, resulting in increasing hostility towards Muslims. But massive terror attacks in places like Egypt, Somalia or Pakistan rarely capture attention or condemnation beyond a cursory headline.

The United States and the rest of the Western world, supposedly the chief target of the Islamist terror groups have, by and large, managed to insulate themselves from religiously-motivated terrorism in recent years through effective control of frontiers, strict surveillance of the Muslim diaspora and taking the war to the Muslim lands. Yet, the West feels it is living under the constant shadow and threat of terrorism.

But the Muslim world finds itself trapped within a graver situation and caught in a double bind. Many Muslim countries directly bear the brunt of terrorism and extremism, yet some of them are being singled out and blamed for serving as the epicentres of violent non-state actors. Countries like Pakistan and Saudi Arabia are the prime examples of this case.

While Pakistan and its institutions are fighting a protracted war with terrorist groups at a great human and economic cost, it remains the target of a non-stop direct and indirect smear campaign by the United States and its allies, which accuse it of not doing enough in this war. Similarly, Saudi Arabia is being blamed for promoting a radical and conservative brand of Islam, albeit in softer tones, as even its critics in the West do not want to offend this oil rich, wealthy state.

The biggest victim

However, the hard fact remains that Muslims are the biggest victims of terrorism. The enormity of this challenge can be gauged by the data shared by General (retired) Raheel Sharif at the inaugural defence ministers’ conference of the Islamic Military Counter Terrorism Coalition (IMCTC) in Riyadh in November.

According to General Sharif – Commander-in-Chief of the IMCTC – more than 200,000 people were killed and many more wounded in around 70,000 terrorist attacks worldwide during the past six years. In these attacks, more than “70 percent (of the) deaths occurred in the Islamic World in which Iraq, Afghanistan, Nigeria and Pakistan were the most affected.”

Many Muslim countries – from the Middle East to Africa and South Asia to Central Asia – stand shaken by violent, faceless non-state actors, who recognise no boundaries and do not adhere to any rules of the game.

Therefore, it is understandable that the challenge posed by terrorists, cloaking themselves in the garb of Islam, should be countered from within the Islamic world ideologically, politically and militarily. Although several Muslim states have been dealing with this challenge, a coordinated regional and global response has hitherto remained missing.

Islamic Military Alliance

The IMCTC, also called the Islamic Military Alliance, offers a joint platform against the twin scourges of extremism and terrorism in the Muslim world.

The idea and initiative to develop a comprehensive strategic approach against terrorism – under the banner of IMCTC – formally came from Saudi King Salman bin Abdulaziz Al Saud, in December 2015. Crown Prince Mohammad bin Salman has now thrown his weight behind the initiative to empower this pan-Islamic united front against violent extremism in a bid to defeat it.

Initially, 34 Muslim countries were part of the IMCTC, but its membership has now increased to 41. Besides Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, important Muslim countries, including Turkey, Malaysia, Egypt, the UAE, Kuwait and Jordan, are part of the alliance. Other nations, which remain direct targets and victims of terrorism, such as Afghanistan, Nigeria and Bangladesh are also in its fold.

The IMCTC’s formation has been welcomed in most parts of the Islamic world, as well as in other important countries, including the United States, China and Germany. The alliance is being described as the best response to those forces, which are trying to associate Islam with terrorism.

However, there are elements which dub IMCTC as a sectarian front due to the absence of Shiite-majority Iran and Iraq from its ranks. But these allegations reflect more the Saudi-Iran tensions, as there are several countries within this alliance which enjoy friendly, cordial and close relations with Tehran including Lebanon, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Oman and Kuwait. Even Indonesia, which announced support for the IMCTC has good relations with Iran.

Not against any sect

IMCTC Commander-in-Chief General Raheel Sharif has repeatedly said that the sole purpose of the alliance is to fight terrorism. “It is not against any country, sect or religion,” he reiterated in his November 26 address at the IMCTC’s Riyadh conference.

Most Muslim countries which are victims of terrorism are being targeted by Sunni militant groups – ranging from Al-Qaeda and Daesh (the Islamic State) to the Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan and Boko Haram. The other fringe and shadowy militant groups – operating in the Middle East, South Asia and Central Asia – are also predominantly Sunni Muslims. So it is natural that the Sunni Muslim states feel the strongest need to band together against this common threat.

The IMCTC aims to develop “a collective response against terrorism, capable of leading and coordinating the efforts of member countries with high efficiency and effectiveness,” said General Sharif while explaining the raison d’etre of the alliance.

The alliance plans to coordinate with other nations and global organisations to develop a united front against terrorism and extremism.

IMCTC’s four domains

Fighting terrorism, remains “extremely complex and resource intense,” maintains General Sharif.

In this unconventional war, terrorists have the advantage of selecting the target and timing of an attack. They are not bound by any code of conduct and often strike at soft targets – including places of worships, markets, educational institutions, public parks and even hospitals. Pakistanis have ample experience of witnessing this kind of violence in which men, women, young and old and even children have been killed in cold blood in the name of religion.

It is a very difficult and complex war, demanding a high-level of planning, preparedness and round-the-clock vigilance – which is easier said than done. The IMCTC has announced it will seek to develop synergy among its member states, in terms of institutionalised mechanisms, so they can pool their resources, experience and expertise to defeat the enemy within.

The first and foremost area of cooperation is developing a counter-terrorism ideology. This is the most important component of the four domains on which IMCTC has decided to focus. The alliance aims to win the hearts and minds of the people by promoting Islam’s universal message of “moderation, tolerance and compassion.” For this, a concerted effort is required on the intellectual front to counter the flawed, perverted and irrational message of the terrorists, who propagate that by one act of senseless ‘bravery’ and killing innocent people, they could revive their imagined glory of Islam.

The second important component of this strategy, supplementing the first point, is communications. The IMCTC has announced its plans to develop, produce and publish factual media content to correct perceptions about Islam and discredit radical and extremist narratives.

The third aspect of the IMCTC strategy is choking all types of financing to terrorists through collaboration and coordination of member countries and relevant stakeholders. For this, the IMCTC plans to develop and share financial intelligence capabilities, advance legal and regulatory frameworks and other support mechanisms.

The fourth pertains to developing a platform to help member countries in their counter-terrorism operations through intelligence sharing and capacity-building. This involves improving coordination between the forces of member states and conducting anti-terrorism training and joint exercises in rural and urban environments.

Conflict resolution

Terrorist and extremist narratives gain currency mainly by exploiting Muslim rage and anger due to the unresolved conflicts such as the occupation of Palestine and Kashmir and the invasion of their lands by foreign powers. Without resolving these disputes, a complete victory against extremism and terrorism would continue to evade us.

While there is acknowledgment of this fact among the member states of the alliance, this most important point was ignored in the Riyadh conference. The real challenge for the entire Muslim leadership is how to make any progress on this front. Going forward, the IMCTC leadership must give centre stage to disputes and conflicts, involving Muslims and their occupied territories, to defeat terrorist and extremist narratives. For this, greater cohesion, political will and ideological unity would be needed among the member states to make the alliance more meaningful.

At the same time, there is another major challenge for the Muslim leadership; to ensure that the West, and the world at large, recognise and differentiate between terrorism and the legitimate freedom struggle of the people in occupied lands.

This again requires political will, commitment and vision from the Muslim leaders to present and fight their case. Are the rulers of Muslim countries ready to play this greater role that circumstances demand of them?

The creation of the IMCTC and the announcement of its four-pronged strategy should be considered the initial few steps in the right direction, but the goal of defeating extremism and terrorism cannot materialise if Muslims in different parts of the world continue to suffer at the hands of occupation forces.

Allied Against Terrorism

By Amir Zia

Monthly Hilal

December 2017

Pakistan’s decision to join the 41-nation Islamic Military Counter Terrorism Coalition (IMCTC) enjoys a broad national consensus, but a handful of skeptics want Islamabad to stay away from the Saudi-led alliance as they fear that it would bring more harm to the country than good.

The anti-IMCTC arguments stem from three core apprehensions.
Firstly, the 41-member alliance is seen by some as an anti-Iran bloc, carrying sectarian overtones. They believe that it would strain Pakistan’s relations with Tehran and is likely to antagonize at least a section of the country’s Shi’ite Muslims, who comprise roughly 15-20 percent of the population.

Secondly, there are fears that Pakistan – being the alliance member – might inadvertently be sucked into some Middle Eastern conflict, resulting into disastrous domestic and regional implications.

Thirdly, some see this entire exercise as a non-starter because of rivalries among the IMCTC member states and their different requirements, challenges and priorities in the war against terrorism.

Indeed, given simmering tensions between Saudi Arabia and Iran, Pakistan’s civil and military leaders will have to perform a delicate high-wire act to ensure that on one hand Islamabad’s time-tested strategic and economic relations with old, dependable brotherly Muslim country Saudi Arabia continues to grow and expand, and on the other they address concerns of the immediate neighbour Iran regarding this newly formed coalition.

Although staying away from the IMCTC as advocated by some fringe element and handful of politicians is no option at all, Pakistan has opted for the right strategy of playing an active role in the coalition as a major military power of the Muslim world and simultaneously soothing anxieties of Tehran.

The process of reaching out to Iran has already started. Army Chief General Qamar Javed Bajwa in early November made a three-day visit to Tehran – the first ever by Chief of the Army Staff in more than two decades – where he announced Islamabad’s determination to expand ties with Iran in all spheres. According to Iranian media reports, General Bajwa in his meetings with Iranian President Hassan Rouhani and other top leaders called for expanding military and defence ties and collaboration between the two countries for regional peace and security.

General Bajwa’s Iran visit came ahead of the IMCTC’s first meeting of Ministers of Defence in Riyadh under the slogan ‘allied against terrorism’ held on November 26. The impressive moot, inaugurated by Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, pledged to boost its military capabilities to dismantle terrorist organizations.

General (retired) Raheel Sharif, commander-in-chief of the IMCTC, in his address at the conference again categorically stated that the objective of the coalition is “to fight against terrorism and it is not against any country, sect or religion.” Sharif gave a similar message in his October 16 address in Bahrain where he shared Pakistan’s experience of turning the tide of terrorism.

The repeated assertions by the top IMCTC military commander as well as Pakistan’s civil and military leaders’ commitment about taking on terrorists should put at rest all speculations about coalition being an anti-Iran bloc. The presence of Pakistan and countries like Turkey in the IMCTC would ensure that the alliance sticks to its declaration unveiled in Riyadh conference in which terrorism has been identified as a “constant and growing challenge to peace” and the member states have vowed to counter it “through education and knowledge.”

The four-point master-plan focuses on countering terrorist ideology, developing factual media content to counter terrorist narrative, halting terror financing and building anti-terrorism capabilities of military, law enforcement and intelligence agencies of the member countries. The declaration and statements by the IMCTC commander-in-chief focuses on the faceless violent non-state actors who challenge and threaten member states in one way or the other.

A day after the Riyadh conference, Prime Minister Shahid Khaqan Abbasi and Army Chief General Qamar Javed Bajwa arrived in Saudi Arabia with a message that Pakistan fully “endorses and supports” policies of its ally in the region. The Prime Minister Office said that Abbasi “lauded efforts of the Saudi leadership in bringing peace and stability to the region and assured the King (Salman bin Abdulaziz) of Pakistan’s full support….”

This active diplomacy by Pakistan’s military and civil leaders with Saudi Arabia and Iran underlines Islamabad’s commitment of fighting terrorism along with the other Muslim states as well as its resolve of maintaining friendly ties with neighbouring countries.

Pakistan has also more than once demonstrated determination of not getting involved in any Middle Eastern conflict, but in line with the desire of overwhelming number of Pakistanis, Islamabad has also expressed commitment of defending the holy lands in Saudi Arabia.

The third apprehension that traditional rivalries and contradictions among some IMCTC member states would prevent it from taking off does not take into account the fact that these countries have more reasons to cooperate with one another to combat terrorism than basis for non-cooperation. The dangerous phenomenon of terrorism remains the biggest challenge to peace and stability in the 21st century world, especially for Muslim countries where terrorists misuse the sacred name of Islam in an attempt to legitimize their activities.

General Raheel while highlighting the gravity of the threat posed by terrorists said at the conference that “in the last six years, approximately 70,000 terrorist attacks occurred worldwide, resulting in more than 200,000 deaths.” He added that, “over 70 percent of terrorism related deaths occurred in the Islamic World, most affected were Iraq, Afghanistan, Nigeria and Pakistan.”

Pakistan remains the only country in the world, which turned the tide of terrorism single-handedly despite active support to terrorist networks by hostile neighbours like India and an anti-Pakistan lobby within the Afghan government. Yet, Pakistan has managed to put the terrorists on the back foot.

The IMCTC member states can certainly learn from one another’s anti-terrorism experience and supplement efforts in this non-conventional war which is being described as “extremely complex and resource intense.”

The initiative taken by His Majesty, the Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques, King Salman bin Abdulaziz Al Saud is historic and path-breaking in a sense that it managed to bring most of the Muslim countries on one platform to counter the common threat of terrorism.

The coalition aims “to utilize the expertise and resources of member and friendly countries” and provide them support to build capabilities of military, law enforcement and intelligence agencies. Joint exercises and anti-terrorism training remain important pillars of the strategy in which the battle-hardened Pakistan Armed Forces – especially the army and the air force – will take the lead in providing training to the forces of IMCTC allies.

The IMCTC also plans to establish “a state-of-the-art intelligence and information sharing platform to counter terrorist networks, their facilitators, abettors, sympathizers and financiers.”

As the IMCTC is a unique and first of its kind initiative in the highly polarized and divided Muslim world, skepticism and doubts about its role and future are understandable.

But should obstacles or fears of failure stop the Muslim leadership from trying bold and imaginative new initiatives? The grand idea behind the IMCTC is to unite Muslims against the scourge of terrorism, expose the misinterpretation and abuse of Islam by terrorists and build a counter narrative while taking decisive steps to weed out terrorists.

The Muslim world has suffered the most at the hands of terrorists and it has no option but to win the war against terrorism and the extremist ideologies. The good thing is that many leaders of the Muslim world realize that wars cannot be won in the battlefields alone, and they also need to be won in the hearts and minds of the people. The IMCTC envisions to fight this war on both the fronts – which is a good beginning.

Future Of Print Media

Amir Zia

July 2017

Monthly Newsline

Is Print Media on its Way to Becoming Obsolete?

The 20-year-old son of my journalist friend hardly reads newspapers, despite being prodded by his father, who has been following this morning ritual religiously, since his teenage years. The boy is simply not interested in the broadsheet. He may pick up a paper once in a blue moon, when his father is angry or insistent, but never out of choice. It is ironic that this youngster does not appreciate the product that his father had been working on for almost three decades.

It is not that the boy is averse to reading or uninterested in the world around him, explains the father, “It’s just that the source of information now lies in the palm of his hands – the mobile phone.”

It is mostly through a mobile phone, desktop or laptop, that he communicates with the world and learns about it, he added. That’s what most of his peers also do. This category includes a vast number of Pakistani youths, who go to English-medium private schools and colleges, or have graduated over the past one or two decades or so.

Contrary to their seniors, these Pakistanis – whose age bracket ranges from the late teens to the late 30s, or early 40s – are not hooked up to a particular newspaper or a media group, but they pick and choose, decide what to read and what to ignore, on the basis of trends in their respective social media communities.

This technology-savvy section of society does not believe in submitting to the monopoly of one or two media outlets at a time, when the entire world media remains just a click away. They are globally connected and being bombarded with information from all directions – relevant and irrelevant, authentic and unauthentic, factual and cooked up. Undoubtedly, there is an information and disinformation overload.

After their initial reluctance, the old, traditional media – both print and electronic – has been forced to use the new tools of media to disseminate content – news, features, articles, video clips of programmes and photographs. From the platform of this new media, the traditional content-providers interact directly with users scattered around the globe, rather than confine themselves to just a neighbourhood, town, city, or country.

While the information revolution has magnified the footprints of traditional media outlets, it has also empowered individuals who can upload their content online without the scrutiny of the gatekeepers of information.

So, in the age of this interactive, ever-expanding media, many users are no longer silent consumers of content produced by the conventional media. Instead, they direct and dictate it by building trends on social media and share their own information and opinion on various platforms. The ‘information highway’ is not used merely to promote the content produced by media houses. Users compete with it and even challenge it by generating and disseminating content of their own.

In this aspect, modern Pakistanis follow the global trend, which started in the West, where the circulation of newspapers and magazines is on the decline and in recent years, hundreds of publications have ceased to exist. Does this mean that Pakistan will follow the same trend and witness a shrinking print market?

If we view this from the perspective of modern, globally connected Pakistanis, we will obviously reach this conclusion. This would spell a bleak future for the existing print media publications, which face stiff competition from the electronic as well as the digital media, where revenues are increasing at a much faster pace compared to print, according to industry sources.

However, the print media still retains its number-two position in the overall market share of advertising revenues, estimated at approximately Rs.70 billion to Rs. 75 billion. The electronic media holds the biggest share (around 50 per cent) of advertising revenues. The share of digital media – currently the lowest advertising revenue earner – will continue to rise, as both the media houses and advertisers see its tremendous growth potential. Advertising industry sources say that after registering a handsome double digit growth in 2015-16, there has been a slight drop in overall advertising revenue in the outgoing fiscal year, in which the federal and Punjab governments emerge as the biggest advertisers.

For the print media players, the worrisome challenge is that while they managed to get eyeballs by creating websites and pushing their content on the new media, they have been unable to convert it into a matching revenue stream. Yes, there has been growth in the advertisement revenues of their websites, but it is miniscule as their readers prefer free online content rather than paying for it. Leading media houses face the same challenge in the West, where the penetration of plastic money and online payments is much higher than in developing countries like Pakistan.

In Pakistan’s context, there is another challenge, which the print media faced even before the rise of the information age. The circulation of our publications remains small, owing to the 58 per cent literacy rate in Pakistan’s 200 million-plus population. However, the largest circulated Urdu-language newspaper’s print size is estimated at less than half a million copies and that of the English-language newspaper well below 100,000 copies a day. There are no authentic circulation figures available, given the fact that media owners grossly exaggerate print orders while registering for certification, at the Audit Bureau of Circulation, Pakistan. In comparison, the two largest selling newspapers in the UK – which has a population of 65 million – have a circulation of 1.6 million and 1.5 million copies daily.

The low circulation of newspapers in Pakistan is not solely due to the high cost of newsprint or poor demand. Owners of media houses do not want to push the circulation of their publications beyond a certain limit, to cut costs and maintain higher profits. This strategy may seem to make sense now, but in the long run it is myopic, as eventually, low or depleting circulation would start impacting advertising revenues.

Given the educated Pakistanis’ preference for the digital medium, the low circulation-base of publications and their slow revenue growth, the future of the print media appears bleak. Journalists, such as myself, will probably fall into the category of the last generation of traditional print media dinosaurs – all set to become extinct sooner than later.

But luckily, the print media’s future cannot be summed up simply in black and white.

Let’s take the case of Shakir – an 18-year-old from Sadiqabad, Punjab – who works as a domestic help in the house of the same journalist friend I mentioned, whose son is hooked to digital media and doesn’t read newspapers. Shakir, a school dropout, reads an Urdu-language paper daily, when he gets a little break from work at around 11 am. He skims through the political headlines, but his main interest lies in the news and gossip about actors, movie stars, as well as sports.

We notice countless such Shakirs in the working class and low- and middle-income groups in Pakistan. These young ones and their elders like to romance the printed word whenever they get an opportunity. As the literacy rate is likely to improve (though it declined by 2.0 per cent in 2015-16, under the current democratic dispensation), more working class people, your driver and cook, as well as the chowkidar, electrician and plumber, read various types of publications. They have an appetite for news and information. They would read more, if given the opportunity. This section of Pakistan – much bigger in size – may not be English-language savvy, but it can read and write in Urdu and other provincial languages. It provides the print media with a massive opportunity to expand its circulation and size.

Our demographics, the expected growth in literacy, improvement in economy and purchasing power – all offer the print media a new potential for improving sales.

However, the print media must continue to see the rise and rapid expansion of digital media as an advantage, rather than stifling competition. Eventually, publications would be able to carve out a niche for themselves in paid content, rather than offering it for free on the information highway.

Our newsrooms and the outlook of the editorial management must adjust accordingly and they have already begun to do so.

Why doubt the print media’s ability and capacity to adjust and reinvent itself in the face of competition? Wasn’t the rise of commercial radio, in the early 20th century, taken as a death knell for the newspapers? But not only did they survive, they continued to expand. The advent of television in the 1950s, was also seen as a replacement for print; but again it managed to survive, albeit with the demise of afternoon papers in the West. However, some of our local afternoon papers continue to survive – with less fanfare.

The advent of the internet age, after 2000, and the rapid expansion of smartphones in recent years, certainly pose a new kind of challenge for the print media, but it should only help it improve and change for the better. After all, the main trade of print media is not ink, paper or pens, but credible news and information and sound comments and analyses. The medium may change, future publications may look and feel different in the mid to long term, but in every age there will be demand for news, information and its interpretation. So we are not likely to go out of business.

Dangerous Brinkmanship

By Amir Zia

Monthly Narratives

October 2017

The greater onus of saving the system lies with the PML-N leadership which has to act minus the Sharifs. This is the only way to ensure the continuity of the system and ensure improvement through reforms.

Nawaz Sharif is out of the Prime Minister House, but the dark shadow cast by his politics keeps Pakistan seething in a cauldron of uncertainty. In fact, the Sharif factor has now become the biggest cause of continuing instability, conflict and discord in the land of the pure.

The deepening polarisation in Pakistani politics is not a mere conventional power tussle between rival forces. The crisis is graver and, if not resolved swiftly, threatens the entire system.

The ruling Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N) has abused and coerced Parliament into rewriting the rules of the game in a bid to whitewash the corruption and crimes of its leader and family, deliberately pitting institution versus institution.

But this is not the first time in our chequered history that a powerful, political dynasty is trying to take on the institutions and seeking to place itself above the law. Sharif, the patriarch of this dynasty, has walked this self-defeating path twice in the past. But the major difference this time around is that the political stalemate has been prolonged. This is hampering the normal functioning of the government, given that neither side has been able to emerge as a clear winner, nor has been successful in breaking the impasse to keep the system working.

De-facto Premier

The Supreme Court disqualified Sharif from holding public office, but the ousted premier continues to keep his grip on power, operating as the de-facto prime minister.

There is no doubt that he has conceded a lot of ground and the Panama papers scandal grossly tarnished his image. Yet in the initial months following his ignominious ousting, Sharif somehow managed to keep the ruling party intact.

There have been voices of dissent and calls for self-criticism within the party by old-guards like Chaudhary Nisar Ali Khan, the former interior minister, but has far as the optics are concerned the party stays united.

On one hand, this signifies some deft handling of the situation by Sharif and his loyalists. But on the other, it demonstrates that the ‘powers,’ which allegedly want to see the last of him, are either not out for the kill and want the system to continue – at least for now – or feel that they lack the capacity to face the ensuing consequences once they upset the applecart.

    This has provided time and space for Sharif to dig in his heels deeper and launch a counter-offensive in which the judiciary and the army remain the primary targets for allegedly hatching a conspiracy against him.

The PML-N government is bending and changing laws through its Parliamentary majority to benefit Sharif and using executive power to the hilt to control, influence and direct the investigation agencies, in a bid to blunt the judicial process against him on the charges of corruption. He has already been re-elected as the chief of his own faction of the party as a result of an amendment bulldozed in the Parliament, though constitutional experts say that it stands in conflict with the spirit of the constitution which bars a disqualified person from holding any public office. The same yardstick also applied on the political parties and their heads – but not anymore.

Sharif’s objectives

Sharif’s objectives are not just to win back lost space, redeem his name and restore honour, but to weaken the institutions he thinks are responsible for his fall from grace and dismissal from the halls of power.

Clearly, this goal cannot be achieved without weakening and defeating these institutions by hook or by crook. This primary objective is also shared by the traditional anti-army forces within the country, as well as hostile regional and foreign powers, with India leading the pack. Should there be any doubt about the covert and overt support of these domestic and foreign forces for Sharif to move towards this goal?

Sharif and his camp followers, who have a bitter history of confrontation with institutions, see the army as the main obstacle in the implementation of their design of building ties with India at the cost of the core Kashmir dispute. They also realise that these very institutions – the judiciary and the army – stand between them and the attainment of their goal of establishing dynastic rule in the garb of democracy.

Pakistan’s dysfunctional and skewed parliamentary system allows them to strive for this goal by manipulating and dominating the politics of just one province – the heavily populated Punjab – where the Sharif dynasty has solidly entrenched itself, especially in central Punjab.

No wonder then, that the PML-N’s anti-army tirade not just echoes the charges made by local and foreign anti-Pakistan forces, but also seems to be in tandem with them, as they all try to build a narrative that holds Pakistani institutions responsible for fanning regional and global terrorism. They also accuse the army of preventing Pakistan from cooperating and building ties with India and Afghanistan.

This explains why the erstwhile Sharif government did not fight Pakistan’s case at international forums when he was the prime minister. And after his ouster, Pakistan’s first foreign minister in four years – Khawaja Asif – presented a point-of-view that is basically an acknowledgment of the charges levelled by the hostile powers.

The foreign minister’s statement that Pakistan needs to put its house in order is in stark contrast to the policy articulated by Army Chief General Qamar Javed Bajwa on Sept 6 – Pakistan Defence Day – in which he asked the world to do more in counter-terrorism efforts. General Bajwa also stated that world powers should not blame Pakistan for their policy failures in Afghanistan.

Impact of brinkmanship    

Despite all the short-comings, weaknesses, flaws and the anti-people character of the current elected order, so far there is a broad institutional and political consensus that it should be allowed to continue.

The armed forces want to stay away from directly interfering in politics and are operating on the premise that the democracy will self-correct over time and deliver on its promise to improve the lives of the people and stabilise the country’s internal and external security issues.

However, while State institutions support the continuity of the system, there are certain red lines and core national interests, which are uncompromisingly guarded. This includes the country’s stance on the protracted Kashmir dispute, its nuclear programme – vital for the country’s overall security – and ensuring the unity of the state. On all these fronts, the Pakistan Armed Forces remain the lynchpin of the national security paradigm.

However, while State institutions support the continuity of the system, there are certain red lines and core national interests, which are uncompromisingly guarded

As Sharif and his followers up the ante against institutions in tandem with the hostile foreign and local powers, the institutional leadership, which has hitherto maintained a stance of neutrality throughout the turbulent days around the Panama Papers investigation and judicial proceedings, as well as during the prolonged opposition sit-in and protests during 2014, would be forced to take a position.

The expectations of the masses in times of crisis, especially from the Armed Forces and the institutional pressure from within, may force their leadership to act to end the continuing instability and protracted stalemate.

While many analysts and political players believe that Sharif himself wants to push the institutions to take this extreme step so that he can become a ‘political martyr,’ the former prime minister seems to be aware of the fact that the military leadership – since the tenures of General (Retd) Pervez Ashfaque Kayani to that of General (Retd) Raheel Sharif – the most popular army chiefs in Pakistan’s recent history – to the current General Bajwa, have been loyal in their pledge of upholding the Constitution.

Similarly, the judiciary has also come a long way from the activist days of former Chief Justice (Retd) Iftikhar Chaudhary and is acting with extreme caution and restraint, as evident from its handling of the Panama Papers case, in which the Sharif family was provided every possible chance to clear their names.

That is the reason Sharif is attacking the judiciary and the army at will, without any fear of retaliation. But the internal policy of institutional restraint has already been tested to its limits. When push comes to shove, institutions would be forced to act – albeit reluctantly – in the larger national interest. This, of course, is not their preferred choice, nor is it the desire of the political players sitting on the government or opposition benches, other than the flailing Nawaz Sharif and his inner coterie. The applecart will only be disturbed when no other option is left on the table, but the time for a solution is running out fast given Sharif’s brinkmanship and politics of confrontation.

Warding off the crisis

In their own interest, PML-N stalwarts, including Prime Minister Shahid Khaqan Abbasi, must distance themselves from Sharif’s confrontational policies and help the Accountability Courts hold his free, fair and transparent trial.

Attempts by the PML-N government to enact personality-specific laws – as was done to make Sharif the head of PML-N again – will only intensify the conflict and force political and institutional players to act aggressively and with greater determination.

Sharif has been disqualified on legal grounds by the apex court. The institutions have shown that they are only interested in reforms and holding the corrupt accountable rather than wrapping up the system. And of course, they won’t allow Sharif back in the saddle, after a short span, given his involvement in corruption and a mindset fixated on confrontation and settling scores.

The only way Sharif can win back the lost ground is by knocking down, damaging and defeating the institutions with support from like-minded local and foreign players. That cannot happen without harming Pakistan.

Will all PML-N leaders, as well as the rank and file of the party, collaborate in the mission to ‘destroy Pakistan?’ This is the one thing that one does not expect from a centre-right party like the PML-N.

The greater onus of saving the system lies with the PML-N leadership which has to act minus the Sharifs. This is the only way to ensure the continuity of the system and ensure improvement through reforms.

The institutions will only take the extreme step if they are forced to the edge by the provocative policies and statements emanating from Sharif and his bandwagon. Will the ruling party be able to shed the millstone dragging the system down? So far, Sharif seems to be having his way by putting the entire system at stake as the PML-N stalwarts dance to his tune.

Nerves of Steel - Interview Mirwaiz Umar Farooq

By Amir Zia
Monthly Narratives
August 2017

Being an opposition leader or even an ordinary political worker – labelled as separatists – in Indian-occupied Kashmir is not conventional politics as conducted around the world. One has to have a mighty heart and nerves of steel to stand up against the might of more than 700,000 hostile Indian forces

For Mirwaiz Mohammad Umar Farooq – one of the most prominent leaders of Indian-occupied Kashmir’s All Parties Hurriyat Conference (APHC) – politics is not the traditional game of power, but a high-risk mission in which all the dice are loaded against him.

Farooq, along with his fellow political leaders and followers want to free their people and their homeland – the Himalayan region of Kashmir – from the vicious tentacles of Indian rule through a peaceful, political and democratic struggle. What they face in return is brutal Indian state terrorism and repression, a non-stop backlash of threats and abuses from the fanatical followers of Hindutva, a blatantly biased and hostile Indian press and the stony indifference of the world towards the gross human rights violations in the occupied region.

Being an opposition leader or even an ordinary political worker – labelled as separatists – in Indian-occupied Kashmir is not conventional politics as conducted around the world. One has to have a mighty heart and nerves of steel to stand up against the might of more than 700,000 hostile Indian forces in one of the world’s most highly militarised regions.

Farooq took on the responsibility of this ‘do or die’ mission of freeing Kashmir from India after the assassination of his father, Maulvi Farooq, the Mirwaiz or the top cleric of Kashmir in 1990. He was barely 17 years old at that time. And since then, he has never looked back. He has been in and out of Indian jails, confinements and house arrest scores of times for demanding the right to self-determination for the Kashmiri people in line with the United Nations Security Council resolutions. He faces death threats from the Indian state and its stooges for his pro-independence stance on Kashmir and often an innocuous tweet or statement issued by him on the social media results in a barrage of abusive words and insults from Hindu extremists.

In a Skype and telephone interview, conducted by this scribe in two parts for a Bol News’ television programme and Narratives magazine, Mirwaiz Umar Farooq highlights the Indian brutalities in the occupied Kashmir and explains how relentless state terrorism is forcing young Kashmiris to opt for armed resistance.

Can you describe the state of affairs in occupied Kashmir currently? How is the Hurriyat leadership assessing the situation?

Mirwaiz: Firstly, I would like to congratulate the Bol Network for highlighting the Kashmir issue so effectively. Although Pakistani channels are blocked here, people watch your channel with keen interest through other mediums such as the social media. And we are grateful for the way Bol is focusing on Kashmir and showing the Pakistani public a true picture of the valley.

The problem of Jammu and Kashmir is linked to its people’s emotions, sensitivities and aspirations, which are being denied and crushed by the Indian state. We tell everyone coming from India or anywhere else to admit this reality.

It’s very hard for you (India) to digest that today Kashmiris are demanding their freedom and you are responding through the brutal use of force and violence. Have you (Indians) forgotten your own independence movement? People like Nehru, Gandhi, Subhash Chandra Bose and others happen to be your independence leaders, but ironically you equate our young leaders, who are rendering sacrifices, with terrorists.

The reality is stark; India wants to crush the movement of the people of Jammu and Kashmir through the use of force and coercion and by deploying 0.7 million troops there. Kashmiris have been fighting this war for the last 70 years; I was 17-years-old when I took over as Mirwaiz after the martyrdom of my father.

                   The barbarism is not just restricted to one area; all of                                 Kashmir has been transformed into a massive torture cell

It’s been 27 years since I have been associated with this liberation movement. During this time, I’ve realised that with each passing year, the passion and fervour of Kashmiris, for independence, has intensified and increased.

When (former Indian External Affairs Minister and senior BJP leader) Yashwant Sinha and his delegation came here to talk to us in 2016, I told him that in the 1990s you saw emotions and a euphoria among Kashmiris, but in 2016 you are witnessing anger and hatred of Kashmiris towards India for which you (Indians) yourself are responsible.

As you said, following the assassination of your father by gunmen in 1990, you were pushed into politics at the nascent age of 17. What gives you the strength to stand up to a country, which uses extreme brutal tactics in occupied Kashmir and has a history of violating human rights and possesses such a powerful, callous army? 

Mirwaiz: We firmly believe in Allah. We have an unshakeable belief that we are fighting for a just cause. And this is our biggest strength. Those living in cities are relatively better off in a sense that at least they have some access to the media. But the people living in the rural belt are being subjected to the worst kind of violence and cruelty.

Can an independence movement of this scale be sponsored? Would people want to lose their limbs, their eyes, their lives, just for a few hundred (rupees)?

One of our leaders, who recently came from south Kashmir, said that the condition of the people there is deplorable; they face the most terrible kind of violence virtually every day. In June, the forces stormed into their homes, damaged vehicles, beat up innocent, unarmed people. Even the youth, who celebrated Pakistan’s victory in the Champions Trophy, were roughed up, mauled, and pellet guns were fired at them. It’s the passion for freedom that has kept us together and provides us the impetus to keep moving forward.

What’s the price ordinary Kashmiris – men and women, young and old – have to pay when they talk about their rights and independence of Kashmir, given the fact that Indian forces have intensified and increased the level of violence in an alarming manner? 

Mirwaiz: Indeed, what can be more horrific than the scenario which unfolded in 2016, when for the first time, the army and the administration used pellet guns on unarmed civilians; more than 300 Kashmiri youngsters were struck in the eyes with pellets.

Out of these victims, almost 30 percent lost their sight. Pellet scars still exist on their bodies and faces. In that spell of savagery, as many as 97 innocent Kashmiris were martyred by the Indian forces. The barbarism is not just restricted to one area; all of Kashmir has been transformed into a massive torture cell.

The propaganda that the Indian media is conducting against the struggle, calling it a ‘sponsored movement,’ defies logic. It’s shameful that they are misleading the people by constantly lying to them. Can an independence movement of this scale be sponsored? Would people want to lose their limbs, their eyes, their lives, just for a few hundred (rupees)?

What do you think the Indian government aims to achieve by escalating violence and brutalities in Kashmir? Can the use of force suppress the voice of Kashmiris?

Mirwaiz: There’s talk of the Doval Doctrine, which suggests that Kashmiris be crushed so much that they are unable to rise. But the theory has boomeranged.

The Kashmiri youth has stood up against Indian occupation and oppression with much more vigour and passion in 2016 following the escalation of violence in Kashmir. Unfortunately, many educated Kashmiri youngsters have been forced to take up guns because of the brutalities of the Indian forces against our mothers, sisters, children and the elderly. They have no other choice.

There was a time when Hurriyat leaders faced no restriction in talking to the Pakistani leadership. But since Narendra Modi came to power in 2014, his government has slapped restrictions on such contact. What does the Indian government hope to achieve?

Mirwaiz: India has a false superiority complex. The country thinks that it’s a rising economy because international powers, including the United Kingdom and the United States, are interested in its markets. But I think India’s economy is in trouble; its Gross Domestic Product growth has lost momentum, its investments have declined and the country faces a host of issues due to demonetisation. 

When India is not ready to come to the negotiating table, then what other options do you have to push forward the Kashmir cause?

Mirwaiz: The options are very limited. It’s a fact that India wants to settle the issue militarily, not politically. And one can see this in the way Indian forces have been granted powers to wreak havoc on Kashmiris; you can also see this in the Indian army chief’s statements.

                There’s talk of the Doval Doctrine, which suggests that              Kashmiris be crushed so much that they are unable to rise. But the                                                    theory has boomeranged

It is clear that the Modi government is not seeking political engagement and, instead, wants to suppress the voice of Kashmiris through force. Therefore, Pakistan and the international community have a role to play. I believe that we must intensify our diplomatic efforts to highlight the plight of Kashmiris at every international forum and important capitals the world over.

Kashmir is one of the oldest disputes recognised by the United Nations. Why has the international community shied away from playing a pro-active role for its resolution? 

Mirwaiz: There are many reasons. Firstly, the world community’s focus right now is on other pressing issues such as Syria and Iraq. So, the entire attention is either on these issues or it is on Islamophobia.

Since Kashmir is a Muslim-dominated area, we see the international community’s double standards here. It intervenes in South Sudan and in other parts of the world, but there’s silence on the Kashmir dispute.

Secondly, given its size, population and economy, India now has clout in the international community. The United States and the United Kingdom eye its markets. The economic stakes of the world powers in India is the major reason why the international community has turned a blind eye to Kashmir.

How can the international community be engaged on this issue? Is there a need to organise the Kashmiri diaspora, especially in the western countries, to fight the case of Kashmir on the diplomatic and political fronts?

Mirwaiz: Absolutely. In my opinion, we can garner a lot of support by presenting facts about the gross human rights violations in Kashmir by the Indian forces. We must take advantage of the social media to highlight the cause.

Whenever something happens in Kashmir, the first target of the Indian government is the social media, which is immediately blocked.

However, despite these measures, reality cannot be hidden and the world, through various social media platforms, gets to know the situation on the ground. I believe a sustained effort is needed; for example, Pakistan’s embassies ought to be reactivated. An incessant campaign needs to be run on the human rights issue.

The indigenous Kashmiri freedom struggle is being presented to the world by India as a terrorist movement. How can a counter-narrative be developed to change this perception?

Mirwaiz: Indeed, India has launched a sustained campaign to mislead the world about the liberation movement and paint it as a ‘sponsored movement’ aided and abetted by Pakistan.

But statistics tell a different story. In the last one year alone, 140 Kashmiri youngsters have been martyred. We have a list of approximately 22,000 others who were incarcerated during the same period. We have all the data available. It is a question of presenting it to the world despite all the restrictions, bans and disinformation and misinformation drives unleashed by India.

The Indian agenda is to associate the Kashmiri freedom struggle with fundamentalism and terrorism. It is trying to create an impression that there is no peoples’ movement here, but for the last couple of years, especially after the martyrdom of Burhan Wani in 2016, the world has witnessed an unprecedented surge in our struggle and more and more youngsters are resisting Indian occupation by whatever means they can.

Our position is that the Jammu and Kashmir freedom struggle is a peoples’ movement. The causes of militancy lie in state terrorism, repression and human rights violations. Indians forces arrest youngsters and when they walk out of jail or they suffer abuse and ill-treatment, they take up weapons. We have to tell the world that it is a legitimate, indigenous struggle against India’s illegal occupation of Kashmir.

Has the armed struggle helped advance the Kashmiri cause?

Mirwaiz: Absolutely. But the fact is that the Kashmiri youth had to pick up the gun when all avenues were blocked, leaving them with no other choice except to respond to Indian aggression with force. Even today, the Kashmiris are picking up guns because they have been pushed to the wall.

How do you see the recent US move of declaring Hizbul Mujahideen’s Supreme Commander Syed Salahuddin a terrorist? Why, after all these years, has Washington suddenly declared him a terrorist?

Mirwaiz: Firstly, the Americans know that Kashmiri armed groups, including Hizbul Mujahideen, operate only in Kashmir and in no other part of the world, including India. They know that these militant groups are meant only for Kashmir. The United States’ position on Kashmir has always been that Kashmir is a dispute and it needs to be solved. However, recently a US tilt towards India is evident.

It’s a fact that India wants to settle the issue militarily, not politically. And one can see this in the way Indian forces have been granted powers to wreak havoc on Kashmiris

The All Parties Hurriyat Conference sees the armed struggle in Kashmir as one aspect of the overall movement, but not as its dominant factor. The dominant factor of the Kashmir Independence Movement is its political struggle. The Indian forces are killing unarmed children and those who are resisting the occupation, by forming poorly-armed militant groups, are doing it because they see all peaceful and democratic avenues to end this conflict are closed and to halt the Indian atrocities.

The drift of youngsters towards militancy is also a challenge for us but the Indians are pushing them to the wall. We want to keep our independence movement peaceful and political. The United States should rethink its policy (on Kashmir) and take immediate action to resolve the issue in a just and equitable manner rather than siding with the Indian occupation forces.

Will the move of declaring Syed Salahuddin a global terrorist by the US have any impact on the political and armed struggle in occupied Kashmir?

Mirwaiz: I don’t think it would have an impact. To keep the record straight, I would like to mention that when there was an attack on Pathankot (January 2016), we condemned it. We don’t encourage militancy even in Kashmir. It is India which is resorting to aggression in Kashmir, it is India which is committing human rights violations and atrocities and it is India which has transformed Kashmir into the highest militarised zone in the world.

Is Syed Salahuddin relevant in today’s Kashmiri struggle which has been taken over by young, new faces?

Mirwaiz: The United Jihad Council is a platform where Kashmiri militant groups coordinate. It is necessary to have a chain of command. The Jihad Council says that if the Kashmir dispute can be solved politically and India takes initiative and shows willingness to settle the issue through talks, only then can it consider a ceasefire.

The world must see that if there is militancy in Kashmir, there is a context to it. Now there is a new phenomenon; youngsters, teenagers and even children – both boys and girls – are spearheading protests and shouting for freedom in rallies and protests.

Many of them realise that the Indian forces and government are bent upon denying them political space and the means to a peaceful, democratic struggle. This is leading towards a new situation. Many of these youngsters are acting on their own, as freelancers. It is a challenge for all of us. We don’t want these kids to ruin their future, but the belligerent Indian attitude and atrocities are leaving them with no choice but to take up arms without any chain of command.

Any message for the Pakistanis?

Mirwaiz: Pakistanis have always supported Kashmiris on the diplomatic, political, and moral fronts. We expect that they will continue this support. I also urge the Pakistani media to highlight the Kashmir cause much more effectively and vociferously to the world. I request the Pakistani media to redouble its efforts to present our case to the world and inform the world community about the barbarities which India is committing against the innocent Kashmiris.

ends