Girls celebrate Independence Day in Pakistan.

On Friday, Pakistanis celebrated the country’s 62nd anniversary of independence from British rule, waving flags and singing songs. Security was on high alert in the conflict-torn nation.

Also on Friday, President Asif Zardari announced reforms that will allow political activities in Pakistan’s tribal areas, hoping to draw the lawless region closer to mainstream politics.

Worldfocus contributing blogger Bilal Qureshi describes the changes Pakistan has gone through since gaining independence in 1947.

People in Pakistan are celebrating Independence Day on 14 August. Pakistani flags are flying all over the country, national anthem is playing in every car, every shop, and on every television channel. The overall atmosphere in Pakistan is very patriotic and celebratory.

Good, this is what independence should be all about!

But, there is one question worth asking and exploring at this moment in Pakistan’s history. Why are Pakistanis celebrating this day with so much enthusiasm?

Anyone familiar with Pakistan’s history will definitely agree with me when I suggest that 47’s Pakistan was much better then 2009’s Pakistan. Back in 47, despite awful circumstances, people believed in the country, people believed that the worst was over and now the new country will be a land of opportunities, justice, peace and progress, not only for Muslims, but for everyone living within the boundaries of this brand new country, Pakistan. However, events proved to be totally different and we now know that hoping for the best doesn’t necessarily mean anything, unless people responsible for steering the nation towards stability are serious and honest and Pakistan is a textbook case of classical leadership failure. In fact, not only Pakistan’s leaders failed the country, but the masses too failed to understand what was going in Pakistan. So, what we have today is a country that is on the verge of economic, social and political collapse because of our collective negligence.

Today, when people in Pakistan celebrate Independence, they don’t really understand that the country was supposed to build on what the Brits left behind. Listening to a journalist who has covered Afghanistan for years, I was amazed by his observation and it is worth repeating here. The journalist said (and I am paraphrasing) that industrial revolution (modernity in other words) completely bypassed Afghanistan because Afghanistan was never occupied by the British, and Afghanistan is stuck in 18^th century. There is no reliable road network, there is no railway system, and there is nothing modern in Afghanistan even though the Western countries have been pumping billions of dollars in aid since 9/11. One reason for this backwardness is that the country never really progressed with the world when the world was changing in the last two centuries. Obviously, I am not suggesting that occupation by a colonial power is the only way to become modern, of course not. However, I am suggesting that if anyone looks at Pakistan, India, Bangladesh, and other countries that went through the experience of British presence, and compare their infrastructure to Afghanistan, one cannot escape the inevitable conclusion that Afghanistan really was at least two centuries behind when it is compared to rest of the world. So, going back to what I stated earlier, Pakistanis had everything when the British left — a superior and comprehensive road and railway network, an effective administrative set up to govern, a unique and modern postal service that helped people communicate with other and many other services that are still in use today. So, the country had almost everything that was required to start fresh and it was up to the subsequent leaders of the country to make Pakistan a country of hope and opportunities. Regretfully, Pakistan’s journey from 1947 to 2009 is a journey betrayal, failure, denial, greed and division. In all honesty, there is hardly anything in Pakistan that can be a source of pride for any serious Pakistani.

Yes, despite all the bad things that have happened, people of Pakistan deserve to celebrate independence, sure. However, it is also equally important to be realistic and we must look at Pakistan’s balance sheet for the last 6 decades. More importantly, the country should ask: what have we gained after independence? Are we really free? Are we really independent from foreign influence? Are we really self sufficient in any area? Do we have control over our destiny? Do we make our own decisions? Are all Pakistanis equal or is there a different standard for Muslim Pakistanis and another standard for non-Muslim Pakistanis?  (By the way, the recent violence against non-Muslims in Gojara, Punjab is hardly a sign of peace or progress in Pakistan. )

Despite terrible odds, the optimist in me believes that the country still has a chance to come out of this mess, if only the people in the country get united, demand equality, justice and honesty from their leaders, stop pointing fingers towards other countries for our own failure, stop looking for a ‘invisible foreign hand’ behind every failure, and realistically look for solutions to Pakistan’s problems. There is always a way out when it comes to problems and challenges. There is always an answer for every question. All we need is a sincere effort! And I believe that Pakistanis are, at the very least, fully capable of making a sincere effort!

To read more, see the original post.

The views expressed by contributing bloggers do not reflect the views of Worldfocus or its partners.

Photo courtesy of Flickr user kash_if under a Creative Commons license.

The three share common borders and a long list of common problems, from drug trafficking to militant insurgencies.

Marvin Weinbaum, a scholar in residence at the Middle East Institute and a former State Department analyst specializing on Afghanistan and Pakistan, joins Martin Savidge to discuss Iran’s economic interests and what role the country could play in helping the governments of Pakistan and Afghanistan fight the Taliban.

Each foreign leader is confronting a crisis back home. Pakistani troops are battling Taliban militants less than 100 miles from the capital city, while Afghan President Hamid Karzai is dealing with the repercussions of a U.S. bombing attack that killed dozens of civilians in Afghanistan.

Daniel Markey, a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations and a specialist on South Asia, joins Martin Savidge to discuss the effectiveness of these meetings, anti-American sentiment in Pakistan and the possibility of involving Iran in a regional peace conference.

Read more from Worldfocus editorial consultant Peter Eisner: For Afghanistan’s Karzai, era of U.S. hand-holding is over. 

On the eve of a critical meeting in Washington on Wednesday with Barack Obama, the Pakistani government’s ceasefire with the Taliban seemed to be coming to an end as well. After days of fighting between Pakistani troops and Taliban militants in the Buner region, fighting spilled over into the neighboring Swat Valley, as the Taliban declared an end to a three-month-old ceasefire there. Thousands of residents have already fled the violence.

Anthony Cordesman, a former Defense Department official, joins Martin Savidge to discuss the Pakistani government’s efforts and how the Taliban is likely to respond to the new offensive.

Read more from Worldfocus editorial consultant and blogger Peter Eisner: Who’s got the power in Pakistan?

U.S. President Barack Obama is scheduled to meet with Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari on Wednesday. Source: UN Photo

In Pakistan, a peace deal between the government and the Taliban is on the verge of collapse. As the conflict escalates, Taliban forces are tightening their hold on the Swat region and civilians are fleeing. 

U.S. President Barack Obama is scheduled to meet with his Pakistani counterpart, Asif Ali Zardari, on Wednesday. The Obama administration has criticized Pakistan’s efforts to fight the Taliban as insufficient. Obama is expected to continue to press Zardari to crack down on both the Taliban and al-Qaeda, as well as ensure better security for Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal.

Worldfocus editorial consultant Peter Eisner discusses what the U.S. and Zardari can hope to accomplish, though the Pakistani military is calling the shots. 

Who’s got the power?

That’s a good question with — unfortunately –- an easy answer, as President Obama meets in Washington with Pakistan’s civilian, democratically-elected president, Asif Ali Zardari. Zardari was elected about six months ago, and his lot has never been more tenuous.

Zardari’s goal from the visit to Washington this week is probably foremost to promote his own viability as the leader of a country of 176 million people. That’s enough of a problem. He can’t seem too friendly to the United States — Pakistanis are concerned about meddling by U.S. armed forces in the fight against the Taliban. He can’t seem to be taciturn, but at the same time, he needs the Obama administration’s support.

All the while, the gorilla in the room won’t be in the room: Who controls Pakistan? Who controls Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal? Who’s got the power? The short answer is: Zardari doesn’t; the military does. Zardari has a weak relationship, if any, with the Pakistani military, which calls the shots on dealing with the driving Taliban insurgency that threatens the country.

Zardari hasn’t much to do with fighting the Taliban. Pakistani journalist Ahmed Rashid warned last month about “the galloping Talibanization” of the country, in which more than 10 percent of the territory is controlled by insurgents. If Zardari were involved, he probably wouldn’t want to stray too far from Islamabad.

Here are points from the important Pakistani newspaper, Dawn, on Tuesday. It sounds like a war — and that’s what it is.

“Residents told DawnNews that Taliban militants had consolidated their positions in Mingora city from where they were targeting security forces.”

“Heavy shelling was witnessed in Swat’s Qambar area as militants engaged the security forces.”

“A statement from the Inter-Services Public Relations (ISPR) said on Tuesday that militants in Swat had blown up a police station and fired at check posts of security forces at Shangla Top, Shamzoi bridge, Bariam bridge and grid station Mingora.”

“Militants also looted a store of the World Food Programme in Swat and took away 217 bags of wheat and 400 cans of edible oil, the statement said.”

“Frightened residents fled suburban areas in Mingora on Tuesday, where the Taliban concentrated a two-year insurgency, after the army issued an evacuation order that ignited fears of an imminent new offensive, witnesses said.”

Instead of fighting the war, Zardari is meeting with U.S. officials who are not counting on Zardari to do very much. U.S. military officials are maintaining contact with Pakistan’s military leaders, and with Zardari’s civilian rivals. That’s the best they can do right now in a dismal scenario with no immediate answers or hopes for success.

- Peter Eisner

David Sanger, the New York Times chief Washington correspondent and one of the authors of the article, joins Martin Savidge to discuss the plan and whether expanding the war could further destabilize the government of Pakistani President Zardari.

That mood played out, sometimes violently, on Pakistan’s streets over the weekend and forced Zardari’s government to reinstate the country’s former chief justice — a popular, independent jurist who was dismissed two years ago.

The U.S. State Department said today that the decision by Pakistan’s government had brought the country “back from the brink.” Over the weekend, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton called President Zardari and the opposition leader, Nawaz Sharif, who had driven this weekend’s protests.

Shuja Nawaz, a specialist on Pakistan and director of the South Asia Center at the Atlantic Council of the United States, joins Martin Savidge to discuss what concessions the Pakistani government has made to end the political crisis, what the unrest could mean for the U.S. and how the showdown impacted Taliban and al-Qaeda militants.

But on Thursday, a protest movement against Pakistan’s civilian government intensified, as did a crackdown by the government on its political opponents. All of this has the Obama administration worried.

Abdullah Hussain Haroon, Pakistan’s ambassador to the United Nations, joins Martin Savidge to discuss the Zardari government’s waning popularity, its crackdown on the protesters, and Pakistan’s strategy when it comes to combating the Taliban and al-Qaeda.

Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari. Photo: United Nations

After Pakistan’s Supreme Court barred opposition leader Nawaz Sharif and his brother, Shahbaz, from holding public office on Wednesday, protests broke out across the country.

Sharif, of the Pakistan Muslim League - Nawaz (PML-N) Party, blames Pakistani president and longtime rival Asif Ali Zardari for the decision. Sharif quit the coalition government in August of last year.

Sharif’s supporters have taken to the streets against Zardari’s Pakistan People’s Party (PPP) — a sign of political instability and distraction even as the country deals with terrorism and the economic crisis.

For more on Sharif’s position and Pakistan’s political maneuvering, see PBS Wide Angle’s interview with Pakistan expert Daniel Markey.

Blogger Shaheryar Azhar at “All Things Pakistan” worries for Pakistan’s political future:

All those who have supported one position or the other, instead of the compromise, are also guilty. This is a collective failure on our part, not just of the political players. Pakistan is straight heading for a train wreck and the biggest losers will be the (divided) civil society and democratic forces notwithstanding their heroic 60-year struggle.

Blogger Arif Rafiq of the “Pakistan Policy Blog” argues that Zardari is to blame:

Politically, the Sharifs and their faction of the Muslim League (PML-N) — Pakistan’s second largest party — are isolated. Their major allies are those outside of parliament [...] However, there is a huge disparity between the Zardari’s political security and popular opinion toward him. Simply put, Zardari is hated inside Pakistan, particularly in Punjab. This has always been the case, except for the burst of sympathy after his wife’s murder.  Public goodwill toward Zardari dissipated by the following summer when he violated a series of popular agreements with Nawaz.  Subsequently, Zardari made a power grab and took the presidency.

[...]So the big question are: How long can the contradictions between Zardari’s political strength and massive unpopularity last?  And can Pakistan achieve political stability with its second largest party shut out of the corridors of power?

A commenter at “ProPakistan” writes that s/he has stopped supporting Zardari, though once a supporter of the PPP:

I, and my family WERE strictly PPP supporters since my grand fathers time. [...] [Zardari] should have definitely not done this, as the coalition govt was a good sign of democracy in Pakistan, and PPP still had the main parts of the govt power anyway, and they should have been already satisfied with that.

They discuss U.S. plans to move more troops into Afghanistan, Pakistani leader Asif Ali Zardari’s claims that he is taking steps against terrorism amid questions about his government’s effectiveness and Zimbabwe’s continued cholera crisis.

Amit Pandya, a senior associate at Stimson, a global security think tank, discusses Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari’s meeting with U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and the extent to which his government can add meaningful value to the investigation.

Daniel Markey, a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, speaks with Martin Savidge about the future of Pakistan’s participation in the war on terror, Asif Ali Zardari’s response to the attacks in India and a visit to Pakistan by U.S. joint chiefs of staff.

Welcome to Zardaristan

On Saturday, a group of less than 500 politicians annointed Asif Ali Zardari as the next president of Pakistan. It was less the victory of democracy, and more that of small-minded elites.

These politicians have bandwagoned around Zardari — a man bankrupt of achievement, aptitude, moral rectitude, and public esteem, blamed by many for the downfall of his wife’s political career during the 1990s, effectively separated/estranged from her and indifferent to politics a year and a half back and now the inheritor of her checkered legacy.

They have lavished Zardari with undeserved platitudes and legitimacy.

To read more, visit the original post.

The views expressed by contributing bloggers do not reflect the views of Worldfocus or its partners.

Associated thumbnail courtesy of Getty Images.