Imran's Challenge of Governance.

Imran Khan, the Pakistan Prime Minister's,  integrity and sincerity towards making his country a better place economically, socially and in the eyes of the world is never in dispute. He has a clean record in terms of financial ethics and indeed what appeals to his many supporters, especially the younger generation is this sense of values and mission. Countries, however, cannot be run alone on intentions. Intentions have been be backed by actions and a sense of implementation which requires many aspect of the process and people to come together to give a result oriented system.

Imran, in my opinion has, in his zeal, taken on too much on his agenda of change, and this ever expanding menu creates its own challenges on delivery. Added to that has been a regional political scenario, especially Kashmir, which has created its own priority. In fairness Pakistan has never been an easy country to govern and added to years of economic mismanagement the task on the shoulders of Imran is far to heavy to carry in the current package of things he wants to tackle.

Yes education, health, social order, and ending corruption are all vital parts of the Imran agenda and need to be tackled. However, into this melee has been the ongoing investigations into corruption by former political leaders, most of who happen to be from the opposition parties, give a nasty twist to the perception of the process. Yes the accountability process is carried out by a supposedly independent government body and the higher courts in Pakistan have shown a remarkable independence from the government yet one would like to see government ministers and Imran himself not commenting on the cases against his political foes. The moment he or his ministers make a statement about the cases against former President Zardari or former Prime Minister Sharif, it erodes the independence of the accountability process.

Pakistan's democracy, which has had a stunted growth with interruptions of military rule, is far from mature. When a right wing religious party (JUI F) which fared abysmally in not only the last election but ever election in Pakistan, suddenly calls for a march on Islamabad and demands Imran Khan resign it harkens to the 1970's when street power was considered a means of political change. Indeed Imran Khan himself also employed the same tactics against the Sharif government, though in fairness he did not get the resignation he may have wanted, it did elevate him in political stature within the country. The JUIF ascertain that Imran is a 'selected' prime minister rather than elected one is a silly street slogan considering that while some merit will always be in the allegation of rigging in Pakistan elections, few would accept that the election that brought Imran to power was rigged to the point of him being considered 'selected'.

So what is the governance that should be expected of Imran Khan's government. My sincere opinion is that his first and foremost priority has to be the economy. He needs some seriously bright people to be heading up the economic policy formulation and implementation team. At the same time seeing things from abroad the oversight that some government agencies have been given into scrutinizing financial transactions even for foreign investments (individuals) needs to be toned down. Potential investors from abroad, including overseas Pakistanis are prone to ask that even if no more than normal questions are asked on their investments today, some years down the road who knows if the scrutiny will be more broad based and perhaps political too.

Creating an investment atmosphere is more than just announcing projects. In involves crucial confidence building steps, and for Pakistan shifting the economy towards and export oriented economy is a necessity given that it would boost foreign exchange reserves. Export orientation has to be towards value added goods, and for this base industrial sector incentives have to be put in place. Aligning the financial sector to boost not only exports but provide important financial support to export based industries is the need of the hour.

Imran's government has taken steps to tighten its spending and rationalize the government workforce. However these steps are just the beginning and to create a lighter more efficient government machinery also require higher levels of competence and expertise. Job creation has somehow been projected in Pakistan as the job of the government in power. In reality the government must create the conditions for job creation in the private sector and this means a rethink of the stimulus package that is needed for the private sector.

Pakistan has been plagued by what is known as 'circular debt' and its concerns years of mismanagement of the electricity sector in the country. Power theft and non payment of bills by a large segment of the population has meant that an endemic crisis in financing the power sector has resulted in circular debt which is simply rolled over with interest each year. There has to be reform of this sector and something bold has to be done about it. It weighs down the financial sector and also creates a very inefficient power supply system that cannot sustain itself in the long run.

Imran Khan's government must clearly understand that all the posturing in the public eye has its own place in terms of garnering support of their agenda. However, if they do not deliver on the economy then at the end of the day everything else is a wasted effort. I do believe that the agenda of reform has to be pared down to manageable levels and the priority on the economy should be foremost. Then within the economic plan various measures need to be taken to reform the system. Some contentious issues like sales tax and broadening the tax base, while very laudable, need to be implemented through a dialogue with the business community and to consider them the long term stakeholders of the benefits from reforms. Increasing taxes on the people who already pay the tax is not a solution as much as the IMF would prefer it, the solution is to broaden the tax base and for this the business community who pay taxes would certainly not object.

The passion for reform and transforming Pakistan has to be spearheaded by economic change and the social welfare that flows of this economic change is what would benefit the population at large. The government has to also seek to work in partnership with the business community rather than have a adversarial posture towards them. Once the economy starts to head in the right direction then the broader social agenda of the Khan government can be seen and will be more palatable to the people on the back of economic well being. The slogan has to be 'economy first'.

Brexit: A view from afar.

Brexit (or British Exit) has been the focal point of any discussion not only in the UK and Europe but elsewhere. In a sense, other than the seriously politically minded within us, most people are fed up with the whole discussion about Brexit. This is precisely what is wrong with the way our British friends are dealing with the Brexit issue. Boris Johnson, the British PM, seems to have stepped a few strides closer to the exit from the European Union, and even though there is no certainty that Parliament will go with the deal he has brokered, there is considerable merit in the thought that being tired of this issue the MP's who could sway this vote might just cave in.

Boris Johnson the other day commented that he is determined to get the deal done as that is what the majority of the voters wanted. He could not ignore, he said, the wishes of this majority and called it the will of the people. Most people focus on the 'will of the people' which was 17.4 million who voted to leave the EU, however, 16.2 million voted to remain in the European Union, and in all this 'will of the people' argument we forget the large segment who wanted to stay. It therefore makes sense that whatever deal is finally done should go to the people of the UK for final say in a referendum.

One understands the entire emotional appeal of leaving the EU and British people having their say in their own affairs. Yes in a sense no one likes to be told what to do within their own country. However there always was an alternative to leaving the EU and could have been moving the EU to roll back some of the powers that Brussels (the EU head quarters are there) have over domestic policies of member states. While a longer path to achieve this it would have been a less painful path for the British people.

Beyond the emotional hype of regained independence from Britain, the economic cost of leaving the EU has never really been put to the average British person. Just during the leaving process, (mind you the divorce has not been done) the inflationary pressures of Brexit have caused an average increase of expenses to each household in the UK of approximately £ 404 per annum.

In the long terms UK's GDP will slow down from between 1.2% to 2.9% (depending on the final divorce terms), unemployment is expected to rise by 1.9% and net foreign investments into British Industry will shrink. Already British export industries have moved some of their manufacturing jobs to Europe to avoid the new tariffs that would affect them post Brexit. In the same sequence European industries have cut back investments and job which were within the UK causing considerable strains to British industrial production and jobs.

The argument that the UK will benefit from new deals with USA and the Commonwealth countries is not based on any economic reasoning. The US remains, under President Trump, a highly mercurial and temperamental trading partner and the most of the Commonwealth nations have very favorable trading terms from China and Japan, which Britain, in its current state cannot match. some have suggested that since UK was a net contributor to the EU, that money saved will augment the effects of leaving the EU. Yes indeed the UK was a net contributor to the EU by about £ 9 billion a year. However when accounting for over all effect of jobs and investments in UK created by being in the EU  one can be sure that this £9 billion would have been more than offset by the job creation and investments and exports into the EU.

Brexit was sold to the UK people as an emotional deal, and the economic realities of its effects were glossed over to the point of suggesting that the average British citizen will be better off. NO free borders, hence less foreigners taking the jobs, not subsidizing the EU meaning more funds to the British people etc etc. The realities are that, as an example, many of the jobs that lower paid Polish workers were taking up in Britain are usually not taken by British people. The pros and cons of such policies will never be crystal clear but after decades of integration into system disengagement is not going to  be painless. The British economy will shrink and with it jobs and the common man will feel the pinch. EU workers came to Britain because the economy was doing well and expanding, much of this from being in the EU. Take the financial sector, where perhaps British employees will be hit the hardest as major financial institutions will find being in London is no more beneficial in a post Brexit environment.

The skeptics would argue that losing 10,000 jobs in the banking sector cannot do much harm but this is just one important segment. We must consider this is a high salaried sector so the knock on effect into the consumer spending side is larger than just 10,000 jobs. These higher salaried people spend more, buy houses, send kids to school, and of course pay taxes. So the trickle effect into the economy would be far greater than just losing 10,000 jobs to Europe. This story repeats itself into other sectors of the British economy and gradually the pinch of Brexit will be felt across a wider cross section of British society than we care to admit today.

In all honesty rather than just focusing in the people who wanted to leave the EU one should consider that a great deal has changed since the 2016 referendum and more realities have come to show that while the emotional euphoria of leaving EU is all fine, the economic pinch is going to be much worse. It would be appropriate therefore to have a new referendum on the issue of leaving the EU.

India and Dissent in Kashmir.

The Indian government and the right wing nationalist media in India has taken pains to pretend that all is well in Kashmir. Indeed in some parts of Indian administered Kashmir, where Hindus are a majority or at par with the Muslim population things seem to have a semblance of relative calm. However, the majority of Indian Kashmir is seething with dissent over India revoking the special status of the state. This dissent would normally show up in street protests but with curfews and internet and phone lockdown it would seem such protests cannot be organized with ease.

Indian military has been stating that 'terrorists' from across the border, i.e. from Pakistan, are trying to infiltrate across the Line of Control to cause trouble. Pakistan for its account has been urging the Kashmiris on its side and their Afghan and Pakistani sympathizers not to cross the border for fear that such a move would play into India's hands of blaming foreigners for its troubles in Kashmir. Given the emotion on the issue it will be a tough ask for Pakistan to contain the many on its side who want to go and fight for the Kashmiris.

In as much as there has been much attention on the organized militant groups within Pakistan these have been the focus of pressure from Pakistan to rein in their actions. What must worry India is really the disorganized tribal groups, some from Afghanistan, who are more difficult to control. As the study of the Afghan war against the Soviet Union shows that one of the reasons the Mujahideen were so successful was because they were a disorganized force without a clear and hefty command and control structure. Local leaders, usually the tribal chiefs, were free to decide on tactics and timing of attacks and selection of targets. While the Mujahideen may have lacked a coercive strategy to fighting the Soviets, it was precisely this element which always kept the element of surprise on their side and nearly impossible to defeat and disband such Mujahideen forces.

For Indian forces, to ignore that there is no element of armed resistance to their administration of Kashmir is naive. One can argue that who supports them and to what extent, but if the Afghan Mujahideen model of fighting is adopted by these Indian Kashmiri groups then history tells us that it will be virtually impossible for the Indian forces to defeat them. This is why so long as the Indian narrative insists that any armed resistance is not only foreign inspired but foreigners themselves are involved in it, (Pakistanis in their eyes) then they feel they have the moral advantage to carry out whatever tactics the Indian forces use and the extent of the force they use.

Numerous independent sources and Indian Kashmiri leaders have stated empathically that there have been human rights violations in Kashmir. Indian investigations, primarily by the army itself, have not been substantive or independent enough to lend any credibility to such show of transparency. Whenever New Delhi has been questioned about its human rights track record in Kashmir it has been quick to point out others, like Pakistan, on their human rights record. This is very Trumpian in approach as it seems pointing a finger is the best defense. The question is simply Indian human rights record especially in Kashmir and nothing else.

While New Delhi is eager to show it is restoring telephone and internet services in Jammu and Kashmir, albeit it after a 72 day black out, there is no denying that it will monitor the situation and any signs of public protests might well lead to another black out. Kashmiris may well be disheartened by the lack of immediate support on the international stage, but slowly but surely more voices from the United States, the United Kingdom, the European Union and even within India are speaking out against India's handling of the situation. While its response has been that its a domestic matter, Indian decision makers can surely not assume that its a position the world will accept especially if India fails to bring calm to the Kashmir valley.

Pakistan could take the moral high ground and suggest a plebiscite (as per the UN Security Council resolutions of past decades) but add the option for Kashmiris to choose independence rather than only the choice of joining India or Pakistan! It is highly unlikely that India would accept such a proposal given it current stance but most certainly such a move would give the Kashmiri movement an impetus that would color the voice of dissent to one of true freedom.

We will see street agitation increase over the next few months, prior to the harsh winter setting in, and one must remember in the words of Martin Luther King 'the riot is the language of the unheard.' By locking up the Kashmiri leadership, even those who have worked within the concept of Indian Kashmir being a part of the Indian Union, the is no voice that can be heard. In this vacuum the direction of street protests without a leadership can turn ugly. Reason will surrender to passion and restraint will become absent in the face of violent blow back from the Indian armed forces.

I have a fair number of Indian friends and I ask them only one question "If the people of Indian Kashmir really are happy with this decision as the Modi government tells us then why do you need a lockdown and 900,000 armed personnel in Kashmir?' Their usual answer is to deal with terrorist threats. Fair enough, but I have always believed no terrorist even from abroad can operate in a country without some local support and encouragement. Secondly the nature of a terror threat is not mitigated by curfews and lockdowns and roadblocks, they choose their timing and place of attack.

I do believe that while support and encouragement from abroad may have been there for these militant groups, (much like India has supported such groups operating in its neighbors territory) the Kashmir dissent is home grown and for him to move from throwing stones to lobbing grenades is decided by how the Indian armed forces treat the people of Kashmir.