Can Trump be impeached?

The past week clearly was pivotal in showing the extent to which Mr Donald J Trump can lie and mislead people. His former attorney, Micheal Cohen, who once said he would take a bullet for his client, realized the bullet headed his way was really a cannon ball and ducked to become a snitch that could spell trouble for President Trump. To say he was the quarter back directing the play for the Trump empire across not only business deals but hush money and campaign funding would be an understand. While Trump will dismiss him as unimportant person in the Trump organization, the fact remains Cohen may well have spewed out more than what Robert Mueller was looking for.

While Democrats and the anti Trump camp may be rejoicing that they might just have enough to impeach the President, there is a clear matter of legal issues to consider. If President Trump lied under oath to the FBI or the Mueller investigation, then indeed impeachment is a possibility. However, it would then be important to consider what did he lie about? Knowing of the hush money payments and saying he did not while a lie, would not constitute enough of a crime to be impeached upon. However, if it is proved that he knew that some of the money that funded his campaign was illegal and undisclosed then the matter might take a more serious tone.


In a broader sense, the distinctions of lying as an impeachable offense and lying in general, raise more disturbing traits to the persona of  Mr Trump. Yes politicians lie and bend the truth all the time, every one has done it, but Trump has taken lying to not only an art form but has blatantly bended the truth to the point that perhaps he and some of his supporters, have a totally different vision of reality. Coupled with the art of deflection Trumpians tend to still not accept the man is a pathological liar of the highest order. Kelly Anne Conway, his most ardent supporter, on the Chris Cuomo interview kept on repeating that 'Trump did not direct Cohen to break the law." Fair enough he perhaps did not, but that is not the question, the question is was he present in one of the meetings where payments as hush money were discussed?

Presidents cannot be impeached for lying to the public, perhaps because politicians are expected to lie to the electorate! This is ironic in the sense that he lied his whole way through the primaries and into the White House and continues to invent facts as he sees them, and the only retribution he can face is at the ballot box. There is no mechanism to hold him accountable other than the election or within the media. What all this means is that unless the Mueller probe comes up with a smoking gun that is directly linked to President Trump himself most likely President Trump will run out his term.


However, if Mueller does not get the link directly to Trump, and this is not the focus of his investigation, but indicts Trump Jr, or others close to him then the tightly spun web of deceit into the Trump camp will begin to unravel. It is also possible Trump may be infuriated by any indictment of a family member and will simply start a serious of questionable executive orders, pardons and firings which will perhaps save his family but leave the Trump Presidency open to impeachment. An unhinged Trump is not going to be a pleasant sight for anyone. The core of the Republican party is perhaps also fed up with the way things have turned out and might not have the will to continue to support a President who has become an embarrassment to many of them.

The base of Trumps support amongst the public, however, will not have any of this. To them Trump is making America great again and that slogan itself evokes a sense of patriotism, as false as it may be, that Trump relies on the most. His survival instincts are honed into playing to mainly that segment of the American public, a segment that has become his die hard base, to whom the man's lying, questionable ethics of business and his total lack of respect for others is seen as a man who is doing the right thing in their eyes. This is the division that Trump has brought to American politics, a division that he flaunts with gusto because it is where he feels he is right and everything he and his cohorts spin off feed into the mainstream of this base.

In the real political world if Trump is faced with impeachment his base may rally with protests and noise, but in the legal sense none of it can be consequential to a possible impeachment. The merits of whether he can be impeached all go back to the Mueller probe and this is why he and his base continue to call for its shut down. The Mueller probe is not about Trump, its about simply one fact whether the Russians interfered with the US election and how? It so happens that in investigating that many aspects of the conduct of people close to Trump, (Manafort, Flynn, Cohen et al) have come up which have created different smaller, but more significant, investigations into Trump Jr meeting the Russians, campaign finances, election rule violations, and even money laundering. These are the things which could lead to a more focused finger pointing to Mr Trump himself. While in fairness nothing has been revealed thus far other than his lying about certain matters related to hush money payments, the fat lady, or the tall man in this case, (Mueller) still has not sung.

Trump, Mueller and the approaching meltdown.

Donald J Trump has two very distinct traits which coexist, diametrically opposed to each other, within his persona. We know on the one hand he has a very thin skin, and yet on the other hand looking by the comments on his post he has a panache to ignore the noise he does not like. While this sounds like a complicated contradiction in a confused man, he functions in a manner that allows him not to switch on and off from each trait, but simply to let them coexist as strange bedfellows.

He has handled the Mueller probe into Russian meddling in US elections pretty much ignoring his once close buddies fall one by one and his ability to simply be indifferent to their plight On the other hand any direct comment to his own possible involvement or that of his family has provoked sharp reactions. Some time back at the start of his election campaign he seemed to draw two red lines; do not attack my family and do not probe into my finances.

By bringing the family not only into the campaign but also into the White House he essentially he positioned them into an arena where their actions are fair game to comment on. His intransigence over disclosing his true financial position along with the tax returns has a great deal to do with the supposed shady past of his fund raising for his businesses.

However, with the Mueller investigation a collision course is inevitable between Mr Trump and Bob Mueller. While it would be far fetched to conclude that Trump himself directed and participated in interference by the Russians, his knowledge of certain events, which he denies, may be exposed. While this would honor him with the Noble Prize for deception and lying it may well not carry the weight of enough wrong doing to be impeached.

However, there is an achilles heel to Trump and that is his son Donald Trump jr, who it is established did encourage and even participate in contact with the Russians to dig up dirt on Hilary Clinton. Is that an offense? We wait to see what concludes on that legal aspects. But it would seem that Mueller might indict Trump jr. for multiple counts of lying and misleading the FBI and the special counsel probe. Even if he does not disclose who those two phone calls were to on or around the time of the meeting with the Russians in the Trump Tower, there may well be enough for Mueller to at least make some charges stick on the junior Trump.

Now were this to happen, which seems highly likely, Donald Trump, the President, will completely lose his marbles. His rage will not be via a Twitter storm, but more likely by wielding his Presidential powers. This could be a general pardon for his son, Paul Manafort and a whole host of people who would be under the Mueller probe. Firing Mueller is difficult and perhaps too late as some suggest the indictments are already made and under seal. It is also possible that Trump will in his rage fire the Assistant Attorney General, go after his own party leaders for not supporting him on stopping 'this witch hunt' as he calls the probe.

Trump would feel emboldened by his now near fanatical base, even though in the scheme of the nation its small, but noisy, and take measures that would be tantamount to a dictator in a third world country ensuring he and his cohorts are above the law. Legally there is no denying that he has the legal power to pardon any one he chooses to and does not have to assign a reason for doing so. While some may argue a pardon would have political fall out Trump cannot afford. That may be true in so far as we talk of Manafort and others, but when it comes to his son, Trump would not care of fall out. His base would say 'well what do you expect a good father to do other than protect his son?' and Trump has disclaimed the investigation enough times to simply say his pardons protect peoples lives being wrecked by the Mueller probe.

If we have seen Trump mad we have noticed that all pretense of being Presidential goes out of the window. In the event Trump Jr is indicted his worst rages thus far will look quiet and calm as the pianist at the lobby of one his hotels. What we will see is blood seeking rage and the man will tear up the Constitution, the White House and even the whole country till he feels he has got his own way. This is the reality of Donald J Trump and soon we will see a day of reckoning when he will have to choice to accept the circumstances of the indictment and let the court deal with the matter, or he will take matters in his own hands (small ones) and rip every one around him to shreds.

The Breaking Up of the United States.

Nations are not only defined by the borders they live within but by the traditions and values of the institutions they build and the values that become the guiding principles of society. Democracy flourishes when these institutions and values not only become the ethos of the nation but also something that in a sense remains inviolable and sacred.  The traditions of a free and independent press, a fair and just judiciary, a politically educated population and the respect for the rule of law all become pillars upon which democratic nations rest.

Since 2015 the galvanizing of political support during the US Presidential elections set in motion a trend of intolerance, divisiveness, and a political cult of hate which continues to this day. The fact that a hyperbole of fear was created through lies and misinformation is often ignored even by people who defend it knowing that they are defending lies shows the extent to which the manipulation of political consent of the people continues. At the center of this erosion of values that define democracy is a man none other than Donald J Trump, the President of the United States.

For those of us who though the electioneering rhetoric would be replaced by a more Presidential Mr. Trump, were rudely awakened to his first lie about the size of the crowd at his inauguration. That blatant lie carried two very important insights, one, that he had no problem with lying, and two, he was going to be obsessed to shown he is more popular and a better President that Barrack Obama. However, it was not that alone; he continued his attack on the Press, calling anyone who disagreed with him as Fake News, and blatantly made derogatory remarks about who ever offended him.

The confrontation with a CNN reporter after the mid term elections, and then the use of a doctored video to justify the withdrawal of the press pass of the reporter all indicate troubling times for the way US values of democracy are being chipped away by this man. His ardent supporters will continue to buy the doctrine of 'fake news' that is espoused by Trump and his close circle, ignoring that the majority of reputable news networks cannot simple peddle fake news. Admittedly, some of them do have a bias and this is quite normal in a free press environment, but to expect them to be lackey's of the White House, as some claim Fox News has become, is stretching the imagination too far.

What is all this doing to the soul of the United States? Without a doubt the average American is a decent hard working, and even if not having a worldly view, is still a human being with values for life and liberty. While the shape and tone of tolerance may vary across America, it has never been afraid to confront the issues that sat uncomfortably with the norms of democracy; thanks largely to  free press. The issue of segregation, the protests to the Vietnam war, the over sight of misuse of Presidential power by Nixon, the unbecoming behavior of Bill Clinton as President, all were under the scrutiny of the press and brave reporters and journalists became the voice of the 'unheard'.

More importantly, the free press always held President's and their administration accountable, even though one may argue at times the press manufactured 'consent' as it did over the WMD issue and Iraq, on balance it kept a check on a president going rouge. This is not the world Donald Trump wants or respects, and him calling the press the 'enemy of the people'. To students of history this is a shocking reference as through history it has been used by totalitarian governments and fascists with alarmingly similarity to President Trump.

In 1794 during the French Revolution a law was passed that people who spread 'false news, (yes the same term was used back then) were the enemies of the people and such crimes were 'punishable by death.' Hitler and his cohorts repeatedly called Jewish writers guilds and other groups opposed to the Nazi policies as 'enemies of the people.' Stalin in a closed door address to the Communist Party of the Soviet Union called journalists, thinkers, and intellectuals who opposed the government as 'enemies of the people', and carried out the most repressive measures against them.

Donald Trump does not read, and certainly does not read history, his entire knowledge of history can perhaps be put on the back of a postage stamp and leave space to spare. He perhaps does not realize in his bid to consolidate power he is using the tools of trade used by dictators and his supporters, much like the millions of German's who not only stood by, but adopted the Nazi slogans are doing exactly the same. These are otherwise very rationale and perhaps intelligent people who, when it comes to Trump, abandon all logic and anything against him is seen as unpatriotic. Interesting that all dictators equated criticism of them as leaders to be the same as being unpatriotic.These parallels are chilling and at the heart of it they are dividing the United States.

People have become less tolerant of political differences, they have given up years of friendship just become one is a Republican and the other a Democrat. While the Democrats may well carry the burden of their own rhetoric there is no denying that the fuel to the fire that today divides America comes from the mouth of Donald Trump alone. He instills fear in the people, like the migrant caravan, which suddenly today, a week after the mid term elections, is not even spoken off. He has no issue with dropping words that have racist tones and then plead normalcy in his speech.

The United States needs to take back the values that make it such a great nation. It needs to stop this division and the behavior that ferments this hate and stand up for the freedom of the press. Sadly few realize that the fissures that Mr Trump has been driving into the social fabric of American society will not only become massive cracks, they will divide the country up in a manner where generations will pass before the healing sets in.

Pakistan: Aasia Bibi verdict and its lessons.

The acquittal of Aasia Bibi, a Christian woman accused in Pakistan of blasphemy and sentenced to death, brought home some truths about the prejudice towards minorities. While the Supreme Court of Pakistan found no evidence of her alleged crime in its momentous decision highlight the need to understand the issues that plague minorities in our society. The extreme elements of radical mullahs want none of this and believe the woman should be hanged and have taken to the streets, ignoring that the basic tenant of Islam is that she should have been proven to be guilty without a shadow of doubt, they have taken to agitation and openly calling for the general to revolt.

All this took me back to my own life in Pakistan and I recalled an incident that happened when i was about 12 years old. Every summer we worked on my father farm harvesting wheat and one day being very thirsty I reached for a glass, poured some water in it and drank it. A man who was a villager working on the farm came up to me and said I just drank from Yunus Masih's glass and he is a Christian. I said "So what? He is a human being?" The man told me it was 'na Pak' (unclean) to drink or eat from a non muslims utensils. I told him its OK, and walked off.

At the root of the case against Aasia Bibi is the incident where two Muslim women accused her of using their utensils and being a Christian they felt she committed a grave crime and the argument flared from there. Now, over 40 years since my little incident I researched this subject. There is nothing in the Quran or the Hadith that forbids a Muslim to eat or drink from the utensils of a Christian or a Jew (People of the Book). A Hadith only mentions if you know a plate has been used to serve pork and there is no other alternate then you may wash the plate and use it.

We as Pakistanis fail to accept the influence of Hindu culture and practice in our society, because to all intents and purpose hundreds of years ago our ancestry is Hindu or at least influenced by Hindu's. Hindus, especially strict Brahmins, believe that a certain section of society, even Hindus, who engage in menial jobs are 'untouchables' and it is forbidden to even touch them. This whole concept on Pakistani society that Christians are not allowed to touch our plates or glasses etc come from the over hang of this concept of 'untouchables' that was in society in undivided India, and to this day exists in India.

My mother was a convert and her acceptance of Islam was a private matter and nothing she advertised or boasted about. She retained her maiden name of 'Amita' and wore a sari all her life. However, now with hindsight I often wonder how much of this played a role in my father, a highly decorated officer, not being promoted to Major General? (Perhaps it did not help matters that my mother was a very outspoken on women's rights). Growing up alot of my friends were Parsi or Christian and not once did I personally feel any difference from them or towards them. My curiosity to their different faith often resulted in my mother telling me to read about their faith and understand it.

Somewhere in the convoluted history of Pakistan all this changed and intolerance became the hallmark of being considered a 'good muslim', the mullah, assumed the role of the apostle for the uneducated and his word the gospel. The intolerance that followed mixed with the history of a nation that never quite faced its own demons resulted in all Christians and Non Muslims to be considered outcasts. These uneducated self appointed guardians of our glorious religion do not know or appreciate the role of minorities in the service of Pakistan. Names like Justice Cornelius (a Christian), Justice Dorab Patel (a Hindu) , Raja Tridiv Roy ( Buddhist), Jamshed Marker (a Parsi) and many more mean nothing to these men whose ignorance is only matched by their intolerance. These and many more are the names of men who had principles and stood for what Pakistan was to its founder Mohammed Ali Jinnah. These men, without a doubt, paid a huge personal price to make that vision of Pakistan that is now being chipped away with each sermon from these extremist mullahs.

I have had my personal journey too, and come to the fold of Islam in my own unique way, and in the process learned from my mother that you cannot be a true Muslim till you clear your doubts by questioning them. But then one cannot be on some crusade to point fingers at others and yet have the courage to speak up with in the name of Islam people like these mullahs in Pakistan condemn a woman to death on false charges. Where they use religion as a tool to manipulate the masses to meet their own political ends.

Aasia Bibi's case has brought to our conscious that the Supreme Court found her non guilty on all counts and they, rightfully said in their judgement that they are the highest court in the land not just for Muslims but for all those tried under the laws of Pakistan. The three judges have done their part now for the vast majority of Pakistani's it is time to stand up and tell these miscreants on the streets making a noise that they cannot hijack the verdict, they cannot change the writ of the law to suit their own motives. Failure to do so will only play into the hands of these elements who are a disgrace to a religion that seeks fairness to its minorities, and after decades of mistreatment this verdict takes a giant step towards making things right. But, its only one step, the rest we all have to take together.

Trump and Twitter: The role of social media in US Politics.

President Trump, as candidate for the Presidential election, whether by design or through the sheer twist of his personality used social media, and especially Twitter, to create a phenomenon that actually won him the election. I do not believe this was a thought out strategy but it fell into a space where his personality benefited from the use of this 160 words messaging blitz per message and as it snowballed into a massive following of over 55 million followers, it became his chosen platform of communication. While admittedly not all 55 million are his ardent admirers it did draw into his base of followers. Without disrespect to his base, most of them did not prefer to delve into the 3000 word articles analyzing the position of different candidates on national and even international issues. Like Trump their attention span fitted into the Twitter format perfectly.

But this was only the backdrop in which then candidate Trump and now President, tweeted over 35,000 tweets in the past year alone. Spending months analyzing Trumps Twitter behavior reveals something interesting. Not prone to a serious debate or deep intellectual discourses on the state of the world or the US, Trump realized that he could say anything on Twitter and in a nano second it would not only be read but believed by his followers. If it was a lie, and many of his tweets were fabrications, then people would, much like the world of Twitter just simply move on.

His biggest coup was apparent when Hilary Clinton was speaking at the Democratic Convention and while she was speaking, Donald Trump was tweeting, in real time, his rebuttals, some of which were not accurate, to a much larger audience. Having sent his tirade of tweets out while Hilary was speaking he forced the hand of the press corp to then not only report on what Hilary had said but in real time also refer to what Trump had said on those issues. This was unprecedented as in the past such a speech would have been reported as it happened only the next day or hours later the rebuttals from opposing candidates would be reported. In a sense Trump was diluting Hilary's message.

Because no one in political circles had seen this sort of use of social media the political pundits considered Trump inexperienced, immature politically to have a serious view point. But these intellectual stalwarts forgot one important thing, Trump was outflanking them and appealing to the very people who did not read or want to read the lengthy articles in the main media. Like Trump they liked in the world of the nano second, and it did not matter to them what anyone else said but like it or not Trump had not only the first move advantage on Twitter, he relentlessly hogged that space.

Fact checking Trumps tweets does reveal in general he was lying, bending facts, or simply attacking people. But this did not matter because much like Twitters architecture a message has a limited life out there and yes people can comment and correct the tweet, but still the original message has found its mark. Importantly Trump followed one cardinal rule, he ignored all replies to his tweets, even those that praised him, the few that they were, because to him these views that did not agree with him did not matter, they were just noise. The media outlets that liked his message believed his tweets with messianic fervor, his detractors laughed at him, but beneath the surface he managed to communicate with his base in a simple language they liked, truth or not.

As President, Trump has not given up Twitter and even used it to go after North Korea, China, Nato, Mexico, Canada, you name it and he has done it. Many purists believe, and rightly so, that Twitter during a campaign and Twitter as President are two different roles and it is not becoming of the President of the United States to use Twitter to demean and attack people. However, perhaps its a habit with Donald Trump that he cannot quit Twitter, or that he simply believes the electioneering must continue and twitter is the weapon of choice to him. Even as President the spread of lies through Twitter does not bother him because unlike other President these mid term elections are really a battle for his survival. He knows if his predicted red wave falters, then even his supporters in Congress will jump ship, all the more reason many of them have followed him for the fear that his base may turn against them. However, in time the US public will realize that his core base cannot be larger than the electorate and the test of that is around the corner.

For the moment Trump has only two weapons in his hands; his public rallies and his Twitter account. He has spent less time working as President than he has on the campaign trail trying to get his loyal candidates elected, sometimes sounding as if it was he fighting the election and not them. It seems its a matter of time when, like Kanye West, others realize that Donald Trump has used and abused their support. For the moment one has to give him his due credit for knowing the power of Twitter was powerful enough to tell lies and still be elected.

Pakistan: The bitter IMF pill.

As much as newly elected PM Imran Khan, did not want to go to the IMF with begging bowl in hand, the sad reality is that its door is being knocked on for an emerging funding to prevent a serious default of Pakistan's $95 billion debt. In 2015 this debt stood at $66 billion and the the obvious question is $29 billion additional debt was amassed in just three years? To harp on the inefficiencies and mismanagement of previous governments is not going to solve the crisis at hand. Clearly, if the $8 billion emergency package is approved by the IMF it will come with a whole host of bitter pills for the people. Increased taxes, increased power rates, removal of some subsidies and a demand for austerity.

There is an old adage that a country deserves the leaders it chooses. If we as Pakistani's have chosen past governments who have dug us deeper into the debt hole with each term of office then we ought to be ready for the pain to claw our way back out of it. Let there be no mistake that this will not take 100 days and Imran Khan and his team ought to be careful to over promise a recovery too soon. I am not sure he has the right team in place, given that Atif Mian, a prominent economist who happened to belong to the Ahamadi sect, was forced to leave the advisory council in a shameful bowing to religious fundamentalists.

The cost of living will no doubt go up with these measures but there are some fundamental structural issues that need to be resolved. Fiscal discipline is indeed one of the main priorities coupled with not only austerity but also ensuring that developmental expenditures are spent in the right way. It seemed one of the previous governments felt building motorways was the only way to show for progress; even though they may have helped, but infrastructure improvements on their own is like firing blanks at a tank coming your way. Investment into industries, especially export related industries has to be encouraged, bringing confidence to the private sector and also ensuring that the accountability drive does not needlessly target the genuine business investments.

The tax base has to be broadened; it is projected that currently only 1% of Pakistani's pay income tax. While efforts and promises to broaden the tax base have been made in the past the results have been mediocre. Something innovative has to be thought out about this and there has to be a careful rethink of the tax structure too. Cigarettes as an example are still 25% of the price of what they are in Dubai! I believe export related earnings should be given a tax credit that can be used to off set the income tax for the owners and a strict vigilance be maintained to make sure over invoicing and other tactics are not used to inflate export earnings to misuse the tax incentives.

There also has to be a frank talk with the Military and the military defense expenditure to be brought down. Yes there is a war on terror, for which the US has said they will not pay, and there are security concerns across the board, but surely the military can also see where they can cut expenditures and bring about a reduction in of the largest line items on the budget expense side. In addition, rationalizing the size of the government administration would also be a useful undertaking. However as much as the expense items can be controlled or reduced the real trick is to get the income side to perform better.

The income mainly would be in three broad categories; exports, taxes and remittances from Pakistani's abroad. While the Khan government has said they will announce some measures for the last item some simple steps are needed. The embassies in countries where there are large Pakistani populations working need to be improved. As a matter of policy in these countries no positions in the embassies should be filled by political appointees, and the best of the best should be placed there. In some cases the embassies and consulates are in a terrible state of disrepair and one feels one has walked into a 1950's building which may fall down any time.

The big question is that with an IMF package will come loads of conditions and no matter how our jingoistic feelings prompt us to consider we are being dictated to, the fact remains these conditions have to be accepted and only when measures within the country improve can there be a change in the mood of the lenders. I am not sure that the Imran and his team quite understand that the backbone of their success will ultimately be judged not on the rhetoric that is espoused from the pulpit but the success of some hard decisions that have to be taken. The team that should carry this out has to be first class and a good first step would be to make sure all the PTI stakeholders do not again raise objections to the color, sex, or religion of any member of the team.

Trump: Proud of You.

President Donald J Trump, I am, as a foreigner not wanting to immigrate to your country, proud of you. You have brought attention to your role as President like no president before you. You were accused of a thin skin, how untrue. Today I spent half an hour looking through your Twitter posts and on the UN speech tweet you had 12,500 replies and comments. I believe if you read them all you will notice 99% were not complimentary of you, how can you have a thin skin. Anyone else subjected to that sort of abuse would have closed their Twitter account but not someone with thick skin like you. Its like rhino hide, much like of the one your sons killed in Africa.

Your performance at the UN General Assembly was so misunderstood. These so called world leaders do not appreciate Trumpian humor, how would they know that you were being satirical in saying no President has achieved as much as you have. How would they remember that you were making a jibe at your own tweet of 2009 that Mr. Obama was the laughing stock of the world. That's it! They did not laugh at you, they laughed at the subtle reference you made to that episode of 2009. Bravo you are not only intelligent but your humor is also so subtle that the Fake News media does not follow it.

While all this was going on Bill Cosby, the once famous comedian, was sentenced for sexually assaulting a woman, how silly of the media to refer to you and the 19 or so women who accuse you of sexual assaults. There is no parallel; you are a politician Cosby was a comedian, you are the leader of the world, after all even Cosby cannot make a 189 world leaders laugh at his jokes. Cosby should have hired your ex lawyer Cohen and paid them off, after all if you pay a woman you molest its then consensual sex. The only one who can object to it is your wife and she won't say a word.

We are also proud of the way you handle pressure of the media. Yes call it call fake then its for them to prove things, and even if they do remember its a President's word against that off a low life reporter. When things are on fire that seem to suggest you lit the fire, you go along and light another fire, or douse petrol on a 'trusted' person and let him burn to distract the people. Your recent comment to watch out for China interfering in the mid term elections is such a lovely side pass to deflect from your Russian friends. This is what makes you a great President, no one, and I mean no one, can pin anything on you because as President you define reality and therefore you define the truth.

As we enter into a trade war you have shown resolve that no other President could show. Never before has a President discarded good advice to pursue what you believe is right, considering soon you will have farmers suffering and businesses who survive on exports wondering what happened. But then understanding a concept of Making America Great Again is not something that people who went to fancy universities can understand.

It is good that you had your press guys to send you the names of all the world leaders who laughed at you at the UNGA session. You are right they are not our allies and if it means all 189 countries laughed at you then remember all of America is behind you when you severe diplomatic ties with of them. May we suggest you ask the UN to move their head quarters from US soil. Its time they understand you cannot laugh on the US President and still get to be in New York.

India's Terrorism card.

At the time of this writing India had announced it had cancelled the forthcoming meeting between Indian and Pakistani foreign ministers since the 'brutal killings by terrorist attack' by elements 'supported by Pakistan.' The only incident that happened was the death of a policeman in Indian Held Kashmir and considering the provocations by both sides across their border, such an incident can hardly be qualified as significant enough to call for such a cancellation. It would seem with elections around the corner in India, any normalization of relations with Pakistan may not play to the base that supports the current government.

In the back drop of the recent US-India meetings in Delhi, such a posture seems to suggest a building up of pressure on Pakistan concerning the matter of terrorism and the alleged support of such groups by Islamabad. The fact that in the past some terrorist groups have had sympathy and perhaps support from Pakistan cannot be denied. However, the narrative that is sold is that India is an innocent party subjected to such attacks. Ignoring India's actions within its side of the border of Kashmir, India's track record of itself being a supporter of terrorism cannot simply be washed down the Ganges.

A top official of the Pakistan Taliban, who in April 2017 surrendered, in extensive public interviews revealed some interesting information. Ihsanullah, was the spokesperson of the Pakistan Taliban and he revealed that the Indian intelligence agency RAW, and NDS, the Afghan intelligence agency, were together providing finance, weapons and logistic support to the Pakistan Taliban to carry out attacks within Pakistan. He even revealed that RAW would assist in 'the selection' of targets and provide the intelligence on such targets.

Even if we put aside the matter of the alleged Indian spy caught in Pakistani Balouchistan, and his confession that he was involved in planning the activities against the Pakistan government, there is no denying that Indian agents and RAW have been actively trying to destabilize the situation in Baluchistan. Brahumdagh Bugti, as he is known, from the well known Bugti tribe of Balochistan has sought protection from India and has been conducting activities of subversion in Pakistan with the knowledge and support of RAW. Dr Jumma Marri, a well known Baloch activist who lives in self imposed exile in Moscow and is an activist for greater Baloch autonomy has been categorical that India has been providing funding and weapons to the small group of Baloch separatists.

 One must must admit that both India and Pakistan have elements within their society and even government who have an interest in causing chaos in each others societies. There will always be a hardline element on both sides of the fence, and we have the choice to either buy into the rhetoric of these hardliners or to embrace the will of the majority of the people who want peace in South Asia. Pakistan, through its own actions over the recent past, has borne the brunt of being labelled a supporter of terrorism, and somehow its own narrative, which is also true, that it has been the victim of more terrorist attacks than any nation has somehow not got out to the people.

What was shocking about the Ishanullah admission was that he stated emphatically that his group carried out the Army Public school attack in Pakistan, where 250 children were slaughtered, but went on to state that Indian RAW agents picked the soft target and provided funding and support for the attack. In terms of terrorist attacks such an event is no less devastating as the Mumbai bomb attacks or the bombings in Kabul. Why should these terrorists and their backers, be they Indian or whoever, also be pointed out and labeled as terrorists?

Let us be frank the terrorists are in different shapes, sizes and political and religious colors, and till we do not, collectively, admit that they need to be confronted and the people who support them we are simply rewriting the narrative to suit our own political, religious or social agendas. Just as I would argue that people who go into schools and malls in the United States and kill people should not be called shooters but should be called terrorists we are merely softening the blow to our already dead conscious.

This is a changed world; the dynamics of violence are different, the landscape on which terrorists operate is oblivious of the social distinctions between combatants and civilians, between children and adults, between Muslims, Christians, Jews, Hindus or who ever.  One cannot simply assume that India, cradled in Ghandi's nonviolence cannot also have elements who will carry out or support terrorist acts! Our conception of Buddhists always was that they are non violent till the Royhinga crisis came upon us and the brutality of men in saffron robes was no less than that of a Taleban attacking the school, or the terrorists who attacked Mumbai or the man who stepped into a school in America and shot up kids.

To Kneel or Not to Kneel?

Social Media and America is ablaze with the controversy about Colin Kaepernick, a NFL player, kneeling during the playing of the American national anthem. The emotion this has evoked got President Donald Trump involved, calling players who kneel, which he considered a disrespect to the anthem, 'sons of bitches'. If Kaepernick used a sports event as a political platform to protest police brutality, Mr Trump elevated it into a hysterical litmus test of whether you are a patriot or a traitor.

Now that Nike having endorsed Kaepernick, who is shunned by all NFL teams, the debate enters the broader realm of corporate conscious. The result is that it divides people just as much as the act of kneeling did, with some jingoistic burning of Nike shoes. Sadly we forget that Kaepernick first protested 21 months back by simply sitting on the bench during the national anthem. Then after consulting some war veterans he felt kneeling while showing respect would still highlight his protest. I suspect no one would have made a big deal about it had Mr Trump not jumped in with his remarks.

Tim Tebow, another famous NFL player used to also kneel, in prayer we may add, while having various verses from the Bible written on his attire and it was known he was a devout Christian and often spoke against abortion. While he did not kneel during the anthem he always did so after the anthem and it coined a term called 'tebowing'. Kaepernick, much like Tebow sees kneeling as a respectful gesture and why should it not be.

Kneeling in most cultures and history is seen as a sign of submission and respect. You kneel in front of the King/Queen, you kneel when you pray, you kneel when you ask a woman for her hand in marriage, so when did kneeling suddenly become a disrespectful act? I guess since Donald Trump, a man who hardly reads and has no sense of history, declared it disrespectful. His base of supporters, perhaps equally devoid of a sense of history equate kneeling to the national anthem as being disrespectful. Men and women have knelt before flags for ages, its an act of deep respect and submission to what the flag stands for, so why is kneeling during the national anthem suddenly so offensive.

I have watched a number of NFL games and when people are quick to criticize Colin Kaepernick as being disrespectful they should look in the stands. People are buying pop corn, drinks, walking around, talking to each other and some even sitting on their seats during the playing of the national anthem! Is that not disrespectful?  How many of these people burning their Nike shoes sit in their homes talking, eating and drinking during the national anthem. So let us not become so sanctimonious all of a sudden and condemn Kaepernick, or others, for an act which is misunderstood in the first place.

This false sense of patriotism, or the lack of it, is being injected into the American political fabric for the wrong reasons and for motives that have nothing to do with disrespect. If one cannot understand that and still want to burn their Nikes or Ford trucks or whatever then you have simply become the tool of an ignorant mass of people who are being worked up on what is perhaps the most humbling and submitting act, kneeling during your National Anthem, in front of your flag and in front of God.

The Trump Daily Diary Uncovered.

4.AM Read tweets on Obama's (the failed Obama care President) speech.

4.01 AM My tweet showing my success in 15 months more than his in 8 years.

4.02 AM Block 231 Tweeters who are traitors to America and tweeted response to me.

4.10 AM Back to sleep.

6.15 AM Wake up and do 5 minutes Trumps Make Trump Gorgeous Again work out.

6.30 AM Breakfast and watch Fox News. I love those guys, so patriotic. (Note to self to tell Sean Hannity not to invite treasonous traitors to the show. Its very very very bad for this image.

6.55 AM Swtich channel to see CNN (what the Fake Media is saying). The negative Don Lemon is going on about Obama speech. Fake losers . (Note to self. Must get public speaking coach).

7.15 AM Call Pence. "Pence my man, why are you talking of a lie detector test? I never accused you? Is there something you are guilty off?"
Pence replies, "Mr. President I just want to counter the fake news planting stories that I might be deep throat."
 "Come on Pence you cannot be deep throat, well not like Stormy.' I laugh and close the phone.

7.45 AM I am ready to start my day, Oval Office calls to say Angela Merkle wants to talk to me.
"Tell the immigrant loving weak leader of Germany that I am busy today making America Great Again, we can speak tomorrow before my round of golf."

8.00 AM Rudi, the mayor, calls on my cell.
"Mr. President you have to tell Sessions to investigate the story in the New York Times."
"Rudi I am going to do better I will order him to close it down."
"Mr President we cannot do that, this is America, we have a constitution that protects the press.'
"See Rudi this is why we are weak and Russia is strong. If Putin does not like a newspaper he closes it and we live in the dark ages with a constitution over 200 years old."
"Mr. President its the law of the land."
"I am President I can change the law, tell Lindsey Graham to have his guys in Congress draft a new Constitution. My dear friend Kim sent me the North Korean Constitution, its pretty good."
"OK will collect and study it."

9-11 AM Loads of photo moments with all sorts of people I don't know, loads of shaking hands and smiling. Not sure why the plaid shirt guy has turned up here again. Must speak to security to only allow enthusiastic supporter to the White House.

11.15 AM Called my friend Putin on the secure line he set up for me.
"Hello my friend. Sorry to hear about the fake news on the protestors in Moscow. I am sure they never covered the huge crowd in Red Square cheering for you and me."
"Don't worry Donald we in Russia have the means to deal with fake news. You should learn from us."
"I am, I am, in fact I am reading the leaflet you gave me on Presidential Control in Russia. Its very very very informative."
"Da Da, well good talking to you Donald I need to now prepare for a photo shoot while wrestling a Ukrainian bear."
I put the phone down and tell Kelly Ann Conway, "Kellyann now that is a man I admire."

3. PM After lunch (Hot Dogs and Burgers, Made in America of course) I head out to the golf course. Watch more of Fox News, these guys are such loyal subjects.

7 PM Return to White House.

9PM to 2 AM After watching more of Fox and Friends, a few calls to my man Sean Hannity, I sort the world out with my Tweets, 23 three in 4 hours that is enough for the world to know I am the toughest President on Twitter and with 54 million followers on Twitter I should get a royalty from Twitter. (Note to self, must ask Lawyer to send request for sweat equity in company.)

Imran stay the course.

When you were elected I published here an open letter to you, and celebrated the fresh breath of air you could bring to Pakistan politics. I also mentioned, as a friend, I would criticize you when you, in my opinion, are not on course. The Atif Mian removal from the Economic Advisory Council is the first grave mistake being made. Bowing to pressure from the ultra religious groups you have agreed to remove him because he is an Ahmadi. First of all he is a Pakistani and a loyal Pakistani, secondly I was concerned you have not talked of protection of minorities and here is an example where you have abandoned the most competent person on the team just because some Mullahs think Pakistan is only for their brand of Islam. Next they will want the Christians to be removed from government then the Hindus and then the Shia, and then the many different branches of Sunni till they can stamp their narrow narrative on the country.

Imran let me give you the example of cricket. Would you have removed Musthaq Ahmed, or Wasim Akram or Javaid Miandad from the team just because someone said none of them had a bread, or were not as good a muslim as they thought. Should you do that it would be considered a gutless surrender of the team and tantamount to treason to the team. This is not different than the case of Atif Mian, he is not being asked to give advice of Islamic Affairs, he is asked to help with the economy. What shade of faith or any faith the man has is not relevant. I would expect you to reverse this decision and show us that you can make brace decisions. If not remember you give these mullahs an inch they will take the whole minaret.

Another matter that is a bit strange. The hike of the gas tariff, perhaps needed, should have not been done on the recommendation of the civil administration when you have announced an economic advisory council it should have had the input from them. Gas is a major input into the economic modeling for the country and such a decision should have waited for the EAC, otherwise why have such an assembly of talent, not minus Atif Mian?

One of the things you should carefully manage is the civil service of the country. They have a massive vested interest in the status quo they have lived off for years. They can paralyze your government and get it caught up in red tape till infinity. I would be careful of their advice and meanwhile take steps to over haul this monster that can undermine any development effort. They were compliant if not gutless bystanders to the looting of the country and it is something that should not be forgotten.

This is a time to be resolute and if you want to imbibe the vision of Jinnah then you cannot cherry pick what you like and what you do not. This appeasement of the mullahs is not a good sign. We who live abroad as overseas Pakistanis do so not only because of the economic opportunities but also because many of us could not accept the intolerance of the Zia ul Haq era. You have to speak for all Pakistanis including the minorities and so long as they are dedicated to a strong Pakistan then embrace them. Do not forget that Jinnah's first foreign minister was an Ahmadi, and two of the greatest judges of the Supreme Court were a Christian and a Hindu; Justice Cornelius and Judge Dorab Patel.

Trump In a Banana Republic.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

Something has gone terribly wrong. Donald J Trump got elected in the wrong country. Come on this is serious. He was supposed to head up some banana republic and his nomination papers got all messed up and he ended up winning the GOP ticket and even the election. Biggest proof of this being a mistake is that HE WAS NOT EVEN A REPUBLICAN. While the GOP stalwarts were busy trying to figure out what happened Mr Trump had taken the oath of office; to the largest crowd ever in a banana republic.

The whole mystery of why there has been such a large turnover of White House officials and his cabinet is easy to explain. Every staffer or cabinet member who has gone up to President Trump and reminded him that he is not the elected President of a banana republic but is in the US and he should stop watching documentaries of Idi Amin, the reaction is the person is fired next morning. Sadly Mr Trump does not read otherwise I would recommend he read The Autumn of the Patriarch because much like the dictators around whom this amazing novel is centered, Mr Trump does believe that his word is a command.

Much like dictators he does not tolerate dissent or even disagreement, and one can imagine to survive around him one needs to see a spine surgeon and have ones spine removed. Directing the state apparatus to punish anyone the dictator does not agree with was common and now one wonders if telling the Justice Department who to go after and also lambasting Jeff Sessions for indicting two GOP Congressmen just fits into the banana republic that Mr Trump wants.

Banana republics stand out by the fact that the press is either muzzled or totally absent. Mr Trump has taken the hammer on the press and anyone, and we mean anyone, who disagrees within him in the public media is 'fake news'. The message is not that he wants you to believe they are fake news, in his banana republic type of thinking he simply wants them to disappear. For him Sean Hannity and Fox and Friends are the only true press and rest are garbage and when a dictator says they are garbage then they must be closed down.

However, here is the problem, Mr Trump has the desires of banana republic leader and yet has also discovered that the was elected in the wrong country. After all in the country of his good friend Putin, now that is a man with substance, you disagree with him and you pay a price. Better still his even closer friend in North Korea, where you cannot even think to disagree, and when you have thoughts censored you will obviously never have a problem with free speech and the media.

Leaders of banana republics love their parades, the military ones, it gives them a chance to tell the fortunate masses that not only do they have a great leader at the helm but one who controls a vast arsenal of planes, tanks, and troops. It is no surprise that Mr Trump has been wanting his military parade and had the US  been a true banana republic then how dare the mayor of Washington stand in his way?

So what is Donald J Trump going to do? Well if you can't go to the mountain you have to find a way to bring the mountain to you. Well there is this little thing called the Constitution of USA, so that can be fixed by loading the Supreme Court with like minded guys, after all if it needs to be done that way why not. Then there is the problem of the Congress. This is seemingly a harder task but then if Mr Trump can scare them into believing his base is so large that it can even oust them then presto he can have them tow the line. Look at Lindsey Graham who in 2015 called Mr Trump a racist and three years later proudly says he never heard even a hint of racism from Donald J Trump. Come on Lindsey we need to know which is a true statement?


The big question is when will people see through the fact that they got the wrong President for the right country, or to put it differently the right President for the wrong country. Perhaps this is what Trump wants us to believe, that his image of USA and how it should be run is the correct one and if 300 million odd people got it wrong well they will just have to fix their thinking. Meanwhile reports are filtering out that Mr. Trump is designing a President's uniform and its most likely going to be orange and some other bright colors. Of course how can the head of a banana republic have a uniform and no medals, after all he dodged military service, (unless there is a medal for that). He cannot ask Putin to give him a medal or a bunch of them; that would play into the collusion theory. He could ask his friend Kim in North Korea to toss over a few (after all his jacket is over loaded).

I do humbly ask the US Congress to pass special legislation honoring Donald J Trump with a whole host of special medals: Medal of Dishonor, Medal for Lying in the face of the fake news, Medal for Grabbing (we will not say where), Medal for Non Cooperation in International Affairs, The Order of the Great Wall, The Congressional Medal for Payoffs, Medal for Many Many Many good things, Medal for the most disorganized White House, Medal for Racial Inequality, Medal for Excellence in Golf during a crisis, The Order of Distinction in Starting a Word Trade War, and finally The Medal for the most Un-Invited President.

My American friends be thankful for the fact that you have been given, even by error, President Donald J Trump, a true President for a banana republic and now it is your duty to make your great nation into the banana republic that Mr Trump was destined to rule over. Long Live the President (King), and may his humble subjects know their place in his presence.

New Pakistan and US interests: First contact.

In a few days from now US Secretary of States Mike Pompeo  and the US Chairman of Joint Chief of Staff, General Joseph Dunford will arrive in Islamabad for the first face to face contact between the new govenrment of Imran Khan and US officials. Initial comments from Washington are that South Asia is vital to US presence in the region and fighting terrorism is high on the agenda. After the Pakistan visit Pompeo will head to New Delhi where he will joined by the US Secretary of Defense Mattis for a two plus two meeting with Indian officials and a number of agreements, including defense matters are expected to be signed.

This visit can be viewed with an open mind considering that the PTI government has not yet dealt with specifics on their foreign policy agenda. To that extent the US will see the visit as exploring the landscape of the PTI government on issues of terrorism, stability in Afghanistan and gauge the acceptance of the new government by the powerful Pakistan military. The Indian meetings by US officials could well be seen as a pressure tactic to let Pakistan's new government know that India and the US can forge a relationship which could not necessarily be in the best interests of Pakistan unless they tow the US line, especially on terrorism.

Imran Khan and his government a likely to view the issues fundamentally different from the way Pompeo and Washington see matters. In Khan's eyes the issue of fighting terrorism cannot result in Pakistan being a client state to the will of the US, or for that matter anyone. Does this mean they will continue with fighting terrorism? I would like to believe yes, but not in the way that the US would want a free hand in conducting operations on Pakistani soil. Imran is a fiercely independent person and to him respecting Pakistan's sovereignty will be paramount.

For the US the issue will be of trusting Pakistan's commitment to fight terrorism and their constant fear that to some extent there could be collaboration between Pakistani officials and the terrorists to fore warn them of impending attacks. General Bajwa and the military high command in the Pakistani military are radically different from the people who followed Gen Zia ul Haq and his Islamist agenda which did mean closeness to the Taliban. After the horrifying attacks on Pakistanis by the Afghan based Pakistan Taliban any notion of the military wanting to help these elements is out of the question. Imran is most likely going to convey this to the visitors and in a sense he has a better card to play. If the US does not accept the position of his government then he can simply say we will take care of what is within our borders and others look after their borders.

Unlike the PPP and PMLN governments before him Imran Khan has no misgivings that the US will be an evergreen ally of Pakistan. In his eyes the cost Pakistan has paid in over 54,000 casualties from the war on terror is far more than the $20 billion of aid given to Pakistan by the US. This does not mean he is not a realist. Pakistan does want stability in Afghanistan but he will be equally forceful to emphasize that Pakistan is also the victim of cross border attacks from Afghanistan. On the Indian side while Kashmir, like always will be discussed, it is more likely that Islamabad will do well to present the evidence of Indian interference in Baluchistan.

It is also clear that the US and India would know that with the CEPC agreement with China there is no doubt that China now has an economic and political interest in stability in Baluchistan, where the main port to be used by CPEC is based. India shelters one of the Baluch dissident leaders from where he has been trying to stir trouble in Baluchistan. I would not be surprised soon after Mr Pompeo leaves a high ranking visit from Beijing will emerge. It is natural that the closer India and the US become the closer will China and Pakistan be.

While we are not dealing with Cold War politics and alliances, there is a sense within Pakistan for some generations now that the US does not really regard its links to Islamabad as a high priority. Yet so long as US has a military presence in Afghanistan having Pakistan friend is vital to maintain supplies and support from and through Pakistan. Imran Khan has indicated that he would ike to work with Kabul on a new footing and this would mean an admission by them that terrorist elements from their side of the border do cross into Pakistan to commit heinous crimes. I do believe that as Pakistan and Afghanistan work out a better relationship the US will also see the utility of treating Pakistan more as an ally rather than as a lackey.

In essence Washington can see its relationship with Islamabad through the clouded glass of past perceptions, or it can accept that in the new vision of Pakistan Imran Khan and his government could present the opportunity for a fresh start. This will need a new approach to cooperation on issues of mutual concern and for its part it is more likely that Pakistan too will not rely on US economic and military aid as much as it has in the past. Pakistan will also have to show its commitment to a new approach to regional politics and a serious desire to reduce tensions in the region. While thorny issues with both Afghanistan and India may remain the embracing of dialogue and reducing tensions will determine the depth and sincerity of this new approach.

On a note of caution nothing major would come out of this first contact other than each getting a sense of the other side. I am also convinced that the US side might well be impressed that indeed a new Pakistan is emerging and with it they in Washington will have to also develop a new strategy for South Asia. I would imagine admitting that Pakistan has been a victim of terrorism also is a good start.

McCain: Imprint from his death.

The passing of John McCain is a monumental, but sad, event in two crucial ways; its the end of an era for a man who stood by what he believed and on the other hand it defined the pettiness of the man who happens to be the President of USA, Mr. Donald Trump.

John McCain was a permanent fixture on the US political scene, with his presence in the Senate, his unsuccessful bids to become the President of the country, and most of his conviction in what he believed. While one may not have agreed with him on many issues one had to concede that he was a Republican with a heart of decency and good values. For me one of the most memorable moments was when one of his supporters lashed out, in a Q&A session against Barrack Obama, with whom McCain was locked in battle for the Presidency, he stopped the lady and told her that Obama was a decent American and showed a rare pedigree of respect for his opponent that makes it a memorable moment.

He put the interest of the country first at all times and worked in the Senate with a bipartisan spirit which won him the respect from the other side of the aisle. While for us foreigners abroad he did articulate an aggressive foreign policy stance, which one could disagree with, he still allowed his conscious to decide his position of matters. He was against the use of torture as a means of policy and while not pro-immigration, was certainly not devoid of humanism on the issue. His critics may say he was too wishy washy and middle of the road, but it would seem he was torn on many issues, like abortion, immigration and taxes. I showed that he tried to gauge the pulse of the nation in deciding at a particular time his voting pattern.

As he gradually drifted closer to his end from the brain cancer, John McCain was detailed in planning how his funeral must be held and in it sow the seeds of a remembrance that would define him for generations to come. The fact that amongst others he asked for former President's Bush and Obama to offer an eulogy at his funeral shows the depth of the man. Absent from even the list of invitees is President Trump.

This brings us to the second imprint from the death of this American hero, John McCain. Trump has shown a pettiness in dealing with the death of John McCain that shows the character, or the lack of it, in Trump himself. Just as one cannot forget the image of McCain correcting the woman one cannot forget the image of Trump hands folded in front of him and ignoring questions about the death of John McCain. He even stopped the issuance for a formal statement from the White House on the death of the Senator, and some suggest was behind the fact that the flag did not fly at half mast over the White House on that first day.

Yes McCain was no fan of Trump and disagreed with him, and indeed he was a bitter rival of both Bush and Obama. However, both Bush and Obama had the class, as indeed did McCain did, to know that political differences and personal respect do not have to be strange bedfellows. At the end of the day we are brought up to say that once a person dies we must not speak ill of them.

All differences aside Trump could have acted Presidential, he could have taken the higher moral ground and invited or not to the funeral made sure he pays the right tribute to an American who was first and foremost a patriot. Sadly the death of John McCain defines the greatness of McCain in the same way it defines the characterless pettiness of Donald Trump.

Imran's Government and Tolerance.

When Imran Khan gave his speech, which comprehensively covered many subjects of national interest, I mentioned two aspects were visibly missing in his speech. The protection of minorities and upholding the freedom of the press. In any democracy worth its salt these two aspects of society form the litmus test against which the sincerity of the democratic process will be measured. I have followed the social media and recent events within Pakistan with a slight sense of unease. While attacks against a free press have not emerged there has been an upsurge of violence against the Ahmadi community of Pakistan.

On the social media side I find PTI supporters seem to be aggressively rude to anyone who criticizes the PTI government and particularly Imran himself. I do feel social media played a role in marshalling the young voters to the PTI camp, and kudos for Imran and his team to do that, but it is time they make a sincere effort to educate their followers that dissent and disagreement are the pillars upon which democracies are built. Trolling someone who disagrees with you is really creating an elected oligarchy and the first steps towards elected fascism.

I am sure a number of tweets are ready to be targeted at me right now, so let it be said that Imran Khan's knows I am a friend of his and a well wisher of his, but he also knows I would be the first to tell him and his party members when I feel he is wrong. What is said is to benefit him and he would know that sycophants for friends are really the enemy within who do not advise one when one is making mistakes. So for what it is worth here is my say.

Minorities.

I have always taken inspiration from Mr Jinnah the father of our nation, who was adamant in his speech to the Constituent Assembly in 1947 what in framing the constitution they must consider Pakistan as the country for people of all faiths. I also believe that Mr Bhutto embattled by street protests in 1976 declared the Ahmadis as 'non muslims' to appease the religious right who were stone throwing against him in growing numbers. I am not an Ahmadi and yet as a Muslim I do not believe that Mr Bhutto or even the National Assembly has the right to declare anyone a non-Muslim. This is a dangerous trend and in the end everyone can decide who is a Muslim and who is not.

That aside, its an event of history and one has lived with it. But what one cannot live with is militant attacks against a community based on hatred or petty disputes that are then given a religious color. IN the same token it is not for the Mullahs or any one to tell a community if they can celebrate a religious event or not. This is against the teachings of our Prophet and contrary to the tolerance He showed towards the other faiths. In the end whether someone is a good human being or a good Muslim or Christian, or Hindu or Ahmadi will be only in the hands of Allah and not decided from the pulpit of a Mullah with a narrow view of not only the world but the very religion he claims to speak for.

I believe the Minister of Human Rights and the Prime Minister himself should take a clear and forceful stand on such intolerance and ensure that minorities are protected. It is not about restoring any image of Pakistan, it is about doing the right thing and the decent thing. A mere promise of investigating matters is one small step in the right direction, but something bigger, bolder and noble has to be done. The militant Mullahs must know that the laws of the land do not allow such discrimination and certainly not such violence and they should be dealt with accordingly.


Free Press and Social Media.

As said before the social media was a critical part if the PTI strategy, and they certainly knew how it use it effectively and good for them. However, this social media following should not be used to educate their followers to show tolerance, respect and dignity towards all who may disagree with them. Sadly this technology of a nano second can also create a hysteria where violence can erupt. After all just recently in India a Muslim man was killed because someone spread a false news about him slaughtering a cow and lo and behold he was lynched. The incident of the attack on the Ahmadi community was also instigated in part by a social media false narrative that the Ahmadi's had attacked some Sunni Muslims, a news that the Mullahs caught on to, did not verify and launched their die hard supporters to take revenge.

These things should not happen in the Naya (New) Pakistan and while these incidents are isolated they do not abode well for the country if not checked now. Imran you have the charisma to tell your followers that you do not want them to behave in this way, you have the ability to tell them to be decent and dignified in the New Pakistan and to accept criticism and praise in the same manner. This is the best education you can impart upon the nation.


We have to learn only from how in the US social media has been used by none other than the country's President to create divisions and hatred of a level never seen before. I would argue that the fissures that Mr Trump has created in American society will take generations to heal. I believe Imran you are way different and better than Mr Trump and you can set the example of decency and respect and tolerance for minorities like never before. This was also the hallmark of our Prophet's governance.

Trump 'Truths'. A short history.

My mother always said do not lie because you need a phenomenal memory to remember what you lied about. The truth is never forgotten, but lies, by some quirk of mental process, fade out. Of course there is another twist; if you want to remember a lie then keep repeating it till your audience believes its the truth. Donald J Trump has entered a new realm of human psychology with not only forgetting his lies but spinning new ones. Sadly were it not real it would be an amazing reality TV show called the The Lying Apprentice President.

Well, lets go into this make believe world of Mr Trump and postulate his truths.

There is the allegation that he used the N word. The truth is that he does not know the N word because he cannot spell it, and what he cannot spell he does not speak out and explains why his total vocabulary is perhaps 500 to 700 words. He has never called a black man a 'nigger' but he has called the land of their ancestors 'shit hole' countries. Somehow in his amazing brain 'shit hole' sounds more palatable than the N word.

Then there is the truth behind these payments to two women with whom Mr Trump had a romp in bed and one even spanked him with the Forbes magazine; with Trump on the cover of course. After all if you have to be sleazy lets do it with class. But look at this matter a little differently rather than attacking his payments to these women. It should make you proud that the President of the United States of America i.e. Mr Trump, would never have sex with a woman and not pay her for it. His only mistake was that he did not pay them immediately after the sexual sojourn; perhaps he got a call from his wife to pick up a loaf of bread on the way home.

If you cannot applaud Mr Trump for his absolute propriety in paying those two women (and who knows many many more- in his words), there is this noise about the way the payment was made and its violation of election rules. Since he has never read any document or report which is more than one page typed out in quadruple line spacing, it is unlikely that the King of Tweet would have read the election code for people who seek public office in the US. The truth is that in Trumps eyes the judge who interpreted the law in the Cohen case has not read the code because if he has then it would Clinton and Obama in the court not his trusted lawyer.

The truth is that Trump should be believed about is there was no collusion with the Russians, after all he has said that for over 400 times by now, why cannot this stupid media read his lips, "NO COLLUSION".  The meetings between his campaign staff, including his own relatives, and Russian operatives first never happened, but then they did happen but no one told him. When it seemed that he may have known the truth was bent yet again to mention it was about adopting children, like adoption was some code word to cover any sinister purpose of the meeting. The final straw was when Trump said the truth is those meetings were useless as they had no dirt on Clinton; this suggests the meetings would have been productive if they had dirt, thus the intent was indeed collusion. But why should we believe collusion happened? After all my Facebook friends friend tells me that this is all a 'witch hunt' and for him if his President says it never happened that settles the matter.

No there is this slight problem of Michael Cohen, who Trump now says the truth is that he was one of 'many many' lawyers he had hired and 'to be frank he was not a very good lawyer'. Well the truth is that Mr Trump took pity on this 'not very good lawyer' and kept him on for ten years. After all what good lawyer would knowingly break the law, as he admitted to the judge, and knowing he is breakign the law hand over not a thousand dollars but thousands and thousands of dollars to women a couple of weeks before the election? Well the truth is these women out witted the best negotiator in the world, The Donald, by timing their reminder for the unpaid payment for the sex they offered Mr Trump at a moment he just could not refuse.

I can see how easy it is to dwell in the world of the Trump Truths because they come at you sometimes at the rate of 47 tweets a day. However there is one Trump Truth I disagree with. He claims he won the US election. Wrong, the election was won by President Putin of Russia, period no discussion on this. Proof, a winning President is above reprimand, above question and above criticism, and Donald J Trump has not once reprimanded, questioned or criticized Mr Putin, the true winner of the US election.

Key to Peace in Afghanistan: A solution

After 17 years of a dead end military involvement in Afghanistan, the United States of America is learning, like the Russians and British before them, that taming Afghanistan is next to an impossibility. In their drive to defeat the Russians, the US with its Pakistani and Arab allies created the means to arm the seven groups fighting them, being short sighted that after the defeat of the Russians, these seven groups would turn on each other, as indeed they did. A divided war torn country was then introduced to the emergence of the Taliban, initially supported by Pakistan, the US and some of the Arab countries. The introduction of this new military force turned the tide of the seven groups leaving only Ahmed Shah Masood's North Alliance to oppose them.

What then followed in a country still bereft with civil war was a Taliban government with a social and religious agenda that was archaic and brutal in all respects. However, for the average Afghan it was a respite from the civil war and the death and destruction they had faced for over two decades. Events of 9/11, the harboring of Osama bin Laden by the Taliban suddenly changed the situation as the US bombed and then intervened militarily into Afghanistan under the label of the War on Terror. Pakistan, not nimble enough to distance itself from the Taliban were caught between pressure from the US on the one side and their own security fears that Kabul in the hands of anti Pakistan elements would mean unrest in its own northern borders.

Once the retaliation attacks from the Taliban spilled into Pakistan cities and with each bomb blast the consensus emerged that Pakistan had to deal with this terrorism because from an Afghan and US problem there emerged a Pakistan Taliban which was even more militant that their cousins in Afghanistan. However as these militants were targeting both Afghan assets and Pakistani targets, a new dimension came on the scene with the US using drone strikes in both Afghanistan (where they had said they were at war) and Pakistan (where they said they worked with an ally being Pakistan). These drone strikes were limited in their success but more importantly caused collateral civilian casualties; in one case a school being targeted where no militant elements were present.

While the Pakistani government in public condemned the drone strikes, privately they did nothing to ask the US to stop them. One of the major turning points in Imran Khan's political journey was his opposition to these drone strikes with his now famous words, 'we are the first ally in history to be consistently bombed by the US'. His early stance of speaking to the Taliban to arrive at a peace settlement was seen as him being pro militants, and today we forget that both the Afghan government and even the US are speaking directly to the Taliban.

As history has worked out today Imran Khan is the Prime Minister of Pakistan having been elected in a remarkable turn around for his party. While an exhaustive strategy of Afghanistan has not emerged there are enough indications in these first few days to suggest that for one he wants peace in Afghanistan, and secondly he is strong enough now to create the conditions to bring this about.

To achieve any modicum of progress some key stakeholders in this process will need to have a major rethink of their own approach. For one the Afghan assertion that every terrorist attack in their country is guided from Islamabad has to change; after all the Pakistan Taliban are harbored in Afghanistan also. Secondly, the United States will have to realize that Pakistan will be an ally but not one to be dictated too. Thirdly, India's peripheral role in supporting the anti Pakistan rhetoric on the argument of terrorism will need to be toned down and focus shifted to a peace process between India and Pakistan independent of the Afghan policy. Finally, the Taliban must choose whether a strategy of terror will succeed given that now ISIS has become one their enemies within the Afghan landscape.

This last element is interesting as most of the Taliban in Afghanistan are Pushtun's and they see the ISIS as foreign fighters, and thus in a sense is a departure from the thinking of the Taliban in the pre 9/11 era were foreign fighters were seen as brothers in arms. Whether the Taliban and the Kabul government can work out an arrangement of coexistence is up to the Afghans themselves. However, it has to be recognized by the new government in Islamabad that a step towards peace must include the expulsion of all Afghan militant elements from Pakistan and to then work with Afghanistan, and the US for a better policing of the border. The US will have to learn to trust the Pakistan government to deal with terrorist elements within their country rather than taking matters into their own hands with drone strikes.

The US position has been that they had to conduct drone strikes unilaterally because they could not trust the Pakistan intelligence services to do the job! While there may be truth that a decade ago the intelligence service would have had militant sympathetic elements within their ranks, the past three heads of the military have been judicious in cleaning up the image and the rank and file of the intelligence service. With 50,000 Pakistanis having died in this War on Terror there is a sentiment within the military of Pakistan, 'enough is enough', and they would wisely follow the lead of Imran Khan to bring about a peaceful era with Afghanistan.

The biggest problem for the US is that leaving Afghanistan on its own will result in a sudden collapse of the current central government, an creation of conditions of 17 years back and a decade before that when each time Kabul's government collapsed a civil war followed. We also have to consider that with China's investment in CPEC in Pakistan it is natural that they will begin to take a more active interest in peace in Afghanistan. I guess we stand at the unique crossroads where all parties, including the Taliban realize that peace is the only way forward. I do believe that an initiative between Pakistan and Afghanistan under the new government in Islamabad is the best opportunity for the US to exit Afghanistan and do it with grace and leave some framework which both Afghans and Pakistanis would welcome and support in the region.

In terms of specifics the following must be done, not in any particular order;

• A bilateral meeting between Afghanistan and Pakistan followed by a meeting between the two of them and USA. 
• The Taliban be convinced to start bilateral talks with the government in Kabul with a precondition of a ceasefire first. 
• An agreement be reached that none of the parties will arm or support elements in each others country. 
• The creation of a joint intelligence task force which will be mandated to deal with all common threats to the parties. 
• An economic uplift plan in the areas where the war on terror caused the most damage, on both sides of the border. 
• Constant reviews of the peace plan and to take steps early enough to avoid any divergence from the agreed agenda. 

The first step can be taken by Pakistan and it would seem some positive comments have come from the new government. The US and Afghan side should not ignore these initial exploratory forays by Islamabad because they must understand that while Pakistan cannot decide the outcome of events in Afghanistan it can play a key role to achieve peace in the region. Yes it may sound to Kabul that this is the usual rhetoric for peace from any new government in Pakistan, but this is a government that seems to have a better pulse of the nation and taking a step towards them is a good way to put that sincerity to test. For their part Imran Khan and his government should consider a comprehensive strategy towards this peace effort or they will, in terms of their Afghan policy be left on the way side of history. 

Pakistan PM speech: A breath of fresh air.

Imran Khan's first speech as Prime Minister was less a speech than a sincere talk across the table. No pre-written speech, just a few pages of notes and a delivery that would make even his skeptics applaud him for being long on ambition and sincerity. If there was anything lacking in the speech it was little reference to Balochistan, the protection of women, the protecting of minorities and upholding the tenants of a free press. But then in a speech which dealt with issues of malnutrition in children to economics there was much to chew on for the observer.

If one was to chart the social impact of political leaders of Pakistan then one can clearly say Imran set the tone for a social economic agenda than simply a political agenda. Mr Jinnah. the founder of the nation, on August 1947 spoke of a vision of Pakistan, a speech much forgotten in the shrouds of intolerance (covered in my previous blogs), and now Imran has touched a nerve with the people of Pakistan and his words have to be seen as a sincere demand for change, and change to which he and his government will be held accountable. In 1968, Zulfikar Ali Bhutto in his 'roti, kapra, makkan', (food, clothing and housing) for all speech for the first time spoke of the down trodden and the unheard majority of the country. His attempt at democratic socialism and nationalism was at best a failure, but give him the credit for an inclusive social agenda that set the stage to which now Imran Khan has stepped up.

The take away from the speech is positive, asking for change in education, governance, judicial responsibility, accountability, and most of all creating a paradigm shift in not one aspect of Pakistani society but pretty much across the board. The key question is how his agenda of change will be funded as he inherits a State Treasury which is bare, a debt burden that every month sinks the nation further down the tube. It would seem his initial internal economic emphasis is on broadening the tax base through better collection, routing out corruption which has been rampant, and bringing economic changes at the grass root level all coupled with an austerity drive that is indeed praise worthy.

Converting the Prime Ministers house to a university of excellence indicate more than anything that the lavishness of 524 staff is what he does not need. Though I would have suggested that converting it into an All suites 6 star hotel would be more profitable for the nation. I do believe that in respect of life style he has always been pretty down to earth, and is not one who loves money for himself. The biggest challenge will be taming the bureaucracy which has always been the worm inside the government to weakens its agenda. Apart from the curse of nepotism it is a machine which is slow to change and some hard decisions will be needed in reorganizing the civil service.

With provincial governments in two provinces the PTI agenda of change will be limited in its enforcement in both Sindh and Balochistan. While he has indicated he would work with the leadership of those provinces on reforms to the police and local civil service it will have its share of frustrations. I would like to believe improvements in the provinces they control will bring about some urgency in the other two provinces to follow suit. I was particularly pleased that while he took a broad swipe at corruption and corrupt political leaders his speech was tame in terms of attacks on the opposition.

We can sit back and cynically dismiss his ambitious agenda as nothing short of what General Musharraf promised, but then there is an essential difference, the general did not have a peoples mandate to live up to. There has been criticism also about his choice of the cabinet as some of the ministers had served under the general; however I do feel this is a start and I would not be surprised that there would be changes mid way in his tenure. His team building skills are well known as indeed his impatience with under performing members usually results in a change.

The way I see it, if Imran Khan and his new government can deliver even 30-40% of his agenda he would have done more for the country than the 21 Prime Ministers before him. He will have to learn to be open to accepting his failures, however small they may be, as challenges that failed and acknowledge them and move to a new path to achieve the same aims. However, the ground swell of expectations he has created is also accompanied by the enthusiasm of people willing to change and be facilitators of change. Many who voted for him actually did so with the view that the two other parties have been given five chances between them to change things and perhaps its time to try something new. This speech seemed to suggest to them that at least in terms of the talk he has done his bit, now people will want to see him walk the talk. The first steps he has taken within the first two days as Prime Minister its clear that he will walk the talk and that too more boldly than many would be prepared for. But then this snowball of change will continue to roll with its momentum and Imran's first task of getting it rolling has started.

Imran Khan: Prime Minister with an economic mountain to climb.

Imran has finally done it, and congratulations to him, and it reminds me of the long discussion he and one of his close banker friends from New York and myself had in my hotel room in Dubai back in 1996 before he took a flight back to announce his entry into politics. I remember arguing that he should not join politics but become the 'Ralph Nader' of Pakistan; to be a socially prominent Pakistani questioning the governance of the country from the outside. I told him our politics is dirty and jumping into it will drown good people into the filth. He said then, 'sometimes one has to step into the gutter to clean it'.

Imran Khan, kudos to him, not only jumped into the gutter to clean it, but also aroused the passion of a nation that the only way forward is a new Pakistan. Yes we as people always reinvent ourselves, its the one wave of emotions that instils the hope that things will not only change but will be new. His social agenda aside, the biggest obstacle, and one that can derail the promise of a new Pakistan, is going to be the horrible state of the economy in the country.

Nawaz Shareef's government has left the coffers of the country empty, a mountain of debt that needs restructuring and emergency financing to keep things going. Yes Pakistan will have to knock on the doors of the IMF yet again, and bilateral assistance from friendly countries may reduce the size of the begging bowl it will not eliminate it. The critical issue will be the long term fix that is needed in the country, and yes educating the work force to become more productive and investment in science and a better industrial base are sound policies but they will bear fruit over the longer term. Some measures have to be taken immediately for the country to get back on its feet. While insurmountable its not impossible. Here are a few suggestions.

1. Revenue Improvement.

Tax evasion and leakage of government revenues are one of the most chronic issues facing the economy. A few years ago it was estimated that 35% of the total electric power produced in the country was stolen by consumers or important political figures just did not pay the bills. In addition the tax collection, while improving, was still inefficient and in some areas even corrupt.Immediate reform of the tax system and the revenue collection improvement should be done within the first 100 days. This should start from the top and all members of Parliament should set the example of settling their bills.

2. Circular Debt.

One of the most damaging legacies of the three PML(N) and two PPP governments has been that they allowed circular debt to increase to astronomical levels. The primary reasons for this circular debt are the miss pricing of the power rates between suppliers and consumers (in addition to the subsidies) and the non collection of the revenue from key large consumers of power. The miss pricing adds about 12% of the total power bill to the circular debt and there is in general a 30% short collection from consumers. This huge gap is then financed from commercial banks against state guarantees thus adding to the national debt and weakens the financial system.

My suggestion would be to create a new power utility company, all miss priced utility supply contracts where private power providers were given 20-30% return on equity through favorable pricing should be renegotiated and/or phased out. No power company in the world has such guaranteed returns. The circular debt should then be restructured along new arrangements and a portion of the revenue collection improvement to be allocated to pay this debt off. As of now say the 30% leakage of revenue is totally plugged then 10% of this revenue is used to pay off the circular debt.

3. Boosting Exports.

A national strategy for boosting exports should be put into place. Economic zones, with tax holidays and incentives be created and seek to bring in companies from China, Japan and other areas who wish to create export based industries. This coupled with improvements in the work force, bringing law and order into the country would be a positive step. Value added exports should be seen as a priority rather than simply exporting minerals and agricultural produce.

4. Expenditure control and Enterprise Philosophy.

While Imran Khan seems to suggest a drive towards austerity, there has to be broad acceptance of this philosophy through the rank and file of the government. A more proactive foreign policy and a normalization of relations with India and Afghanistan might also augur in an era of reducing defense expenditures. While unions are preventing a major over all of large organizations like PIA and the Railway, there has to be either a dogged determination to make these companies efficient, or to simply allow new companies to be created which are lean in operating costs and more enterprise oriented.


While this is a broad brush approach to what is fundamentally a major and chronic problem for Pakistan, what needs to be understood is that for the PTI government to achieve this there has to be a clear focus between short term and urgent measures and long term systemic changes. Education and health care and job creation have to be considered fundamental to the longer changes needed but without addressing the urgent short term actions needed a long term strategy will be doomed to failure.

A key corner stone of the policy has to be accountability and for this there has to be stronger regulation and more powers to the State Bank of Pakistan. PTI is runs the risk that PPP had in the 1970s when they over promised the people and to meet those promises printing money was seen as a necessary evil resulting in inflation and with industries nationalized a weak economic performance. The electorate who so passionately rallied to the call of a New Pakistan also have to be patient that a New Pakistan cannot be created in a microwave in seconds. There are going to be serious challenges ahead of this government on the economic side and clarity of policy and purpose will be a useful tool to have.

Trump and Trash Talk.

There is always a sense of curiosity within us for the extreme in human behavior. Its like watching the bizarre behavior of people on the Jerry Springer show, or staring at images of the war dead in photos, or simply wondering how far can trash talk go. In the schematic patterns of expectations when it comes to trash talk, rightly or wrongly, there is a mental image of the trash talker. It may sound like verbal (or racial) profiling but one does not expect some personalities to trash talk.

Imagine the Pope, or Nelson Mandela, or the Queen of England trash talking! It is so out of field that our mind would simply reject the possibility. In the same profile we would assume the President of the United States would simply not trash talk; it cannot be comprehended by the brain. But then Donald Trump has radically changed that. When he used the words 'son of a bitch' in talking about NFL players he did two important things; One, he brought trash talk into the Oval office, not like Lyndon Johnson who used explicative words in meetings, but Trump did it through the power of mass media. Secondly, President Trump killed the dignity and decorum that comes with the office of the President of the United States.

Look more deeply into the words of this man, not what he claims the 'fake media' say, and in his own words you get an unadulterated insight into a man who truly believes that if he shot someone in Times Square his diehard supporters would not waver from him. When speaking to many of his supporters I am struck by the vehement idolatry they hold for him, his abuse is brushed aside as 'a man who speaks his mind', his racial innuendoes are ignored (some from his base admire him for that), his now legendary ridiculing of people who he once praised in the most flowery prose is seen as draining the swamp, even though he selected these people.

Donald Trump has not bent the rules of decorum and decency he has simply raped them. And those who ignore his misogyny and disrespect for people are equal participants in the rape of what values we expect from the White House. He has called people to have 'low IQ', 'shameful', a 'flunky' and best of all said Steve Bannon, his one time strategist and a man he praised was 'sloppy Steve' and a 'leaker'. I doubt there is anyone who has left the Trump camp and been treated with dignity after leaving office.

Trumps trash talk is not entirely domestic. He has called the Prime Minister of Canada 'very dishonest and weak', picked a twitter spate with the Mayor of London, ridiculed the entire leadership of the countries of the European Union and then very strangely after calling the dictator of North Korea a 'rocket man' praised him as being very honest and trustworthy?  In all these tirades and temper tantrums Trump has never once said a word against the person of President Putin of Russia.

His supporters love this 'style' of the man who will 'Make America Great Again'. This is not style my Trumpettes this is a mental illness to not know what the highest office in the US demands of a person in terms of manners, decorum and behavior. Whether he will make America great again is still open to question but he surely has taken the office of the President of United States of America and tarnished with the sort of trash talk that makes one cringe.  He has taken his critics to be disloyal to the country, a trait dictators show, and proved Hilary Clinton right that he has a 'thin skin' and a 'twitter temper' could lead him to launch a nuclear strike. Okay the nuclear strike part may be an exaggeration but there is no denying that he conducts his domestic and foreign policy through the mirror of what he personally feels aggrieved by. In his world, and that of this supporters, you dislike Trump then you must be a traitor to the US!

What is alarming is that while we can grin at this trash talk and simply say 'Oh well that is Trump', we have to deep down admit that with each slur, each personal attack by this President he is tearing down one brick of the institutions that make democracies great. As of this writing he has tweeted 38,500 times; that is 38,500 bricks of democracy have been torn out of the edifice of a free press, an independent judiciary, and the over sight of Congress on the Executive branch of government. Not long ago in history there was a dictator in Europe who was also tearing down the walls of the institutions of his country and a whole nation watched in silence as his supporters cheered the man who was going to make Germany great again. A World War and the path of horror later it took 6 million people of that country to die for the misplaced ideals of that man to wake up from a drunken stupor and bear the collective responsibility of one man's madness.

While I am not suggesting that Trump is going to be a Hitler, but I have no doubt in my mind there are some things he wants which are disturbing. Trump wants a muzzled press, a subservient Congress and a compliant Judiciary; a world where he can decide who to 'lock up', who to expel, and which journalist to get air time. So my friends this is not trash talk, this is symptomatic of something much more disturbing and you have the choice; sit back eat your popcorn and enjoy the show, or stand up and start putting those 38,500 bricks back again where they belong.