Latest news with #andPowerinPakistan
Express Tribune
5 days ago
- Politics
- Express Tribune
Nepal after its Maoist revolution
The writer is an academic and researcher. He is also the author of Development, Poverty, and Power in Pakistan, available from Routledge Listen to article The mountainous, land-locked, never colonised nation of Nepal is getting increased international attention due to the unfolding great power competition in South Asia. Whether Nepal will be able to leverage this newfound external interest to its advantage depends on the ability of its current leftist leaders to transcend personal ambitions and demonstrate greater statesmanship. Communist ideologies have not had much luck in Bangladesh and Pakistan. While Sri Lanka has seen the Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna (JVP) form a government after the ouster of the Rajapaksa brothers in 2022, the JVP's historic communist leanings have been significantly compromised. Communist parties yield significant influence in Indian states like Kerala, Tripura and West Bengal, and Maoist rebels are locked in a lingering insurgency against the hegemonic national government as well. Yet, Nepal is the only South Asian country where Maoists managed to take over the reins of power. Nepal's recent political history has experienced rapid changes. The Shah dynasty unified Nepal during the 18th century, but real power soon shifted to hereditary chief ministers known as the Ranas. The Nepali Congress Liberation Army operating from newly independent India then formed an alliance with the monarchy to undermine the Ranas in 1951. After sovereignty of the crown was restored, the Nepali Congress Party worked with the monarchy to form a new government, until King Mahendra decided to suspend parliament, and turn the country into an absolute monarchy again in 1960. Increasing disgruntlement with the Hindu monarchy eventually led communist influences to gain influence. An outright Maoist revolt soon plunged Nepal into a civil war in 1996, which lasted for almost a decade. A Comprehensive Peace Accord was finally signed between the government and Maoists in 2006, which abolished the monarchy. Yet, despite the creation of a multi-party system, the political landscape of the country has remained instable. There has been significant fragmentation amongst the Maoists, and formation and dissolution of varied coalitions has led to repeated changes in governments, even within a single electoral cycle. During the last general elections, held in 2022, the Communist Party of Nepal-Maoist Centre (CPN-Maoist) formed a coalition with the Nepali Congress Party to secure power. But this partnership lasted for just over a year, before major differences emerged. A new leftist coalition was formed between the CPN (M) and the United Community Party (Marxist-Leninist), but the political situation remained tenuous. The CPN (M) has recently formed a new coalition with the Nepali Congress Party. How long this new coalition will survive before tensions erupt between these traditionally competing parties remains to be seen. There is also a relatively small but active group demanding restoration of Nepal's monarchy, which has also been resorting to violent protests to draw attention to their cause. Amidst all the in-fighting and jostling for power, there is scant attention paid to catering to the basic needs of the citizenry, to creating responsive state institutions, achieving sustainable economic growth and improving the lives of ordinary Nepalis. Nepal has the chance to leverage its geopolitical location to funnel more Chinese investments into the country to push back against traditional Indian hegemony. The US is also keener to invest in Nepal, primarily to keep the Chinese at bay. However, Nepali politicians will need to demonstrate much greater maturity and astuteness to balance these contending external influences in a manner which maximise national interests rather than serving their personal ambitions. Thus far, neither the Maoists factions nor the Nepali Congress Party have demonstrated such foresight.
Express Tribune
22-05-2025
- Politics
- Express Tribune
Rethinking the Kashmir dispute post-Pahalgam
The writer is an academic and researcher. He is also the author of Development, Poverty, and Power in Pakistan, available from Routledge Listen to article The recent cross-border hostilities between Pakistan and India earlier this month has re-internationalise the Kashmir crisis. The current moment provides a unique opportunity for both sides to try and address this festering problem in a manner which is not only of mutual interest to both nations, but which also keeps in mind the welfare of Kashmiris themselves. Struggles over Kashmir have sparked all-out wars, and a series of major skirmishes between India and Pakistan over these past 78 years. Yet, after Pakistan managed to gain control of nearly a third of the territory of the former princely state, including the western districts of Kashmir, and Gilgit and Baltistan back in 1848, no significant territorial gains have been made by either side despite repeated conflicts, including the 1965 war, or the more recent confrontation in Kargil. Over the past several decades, however, India worked hard to convince the international community that there is no need for international arbitration to address the Kashmir imbroglio. After the 1971 war, Pakistan signed Simla Agreement whereby it also agreed to address all outstanding disagreements with India bilaterally. Pakistan has sporadically been referring to a 1948 UNSC resolution demanding a plebiscite in Kashmir. Yet, holding a plebiscite to decide the fate of Kashmiris seems a non-starter. The conditions for the UN proposal for a plebiscite in Kashmir require Pakistan to withdraw its forces from all parts of Kashmir on its side of the heavily militarised line of control. India, too, would need to reduce its forces to a minimum on its side of the restive region. It is unlikely that either side will be willing to do abide by such preconditions, or to even accept a new Kashmiri state being carved out from territories currently under their control. Pakistan demanding that India should respect the UN resolution and hold a plebiscite in its side of Kashmir holds little weight. For its part, India needs to step back from nonsensical claims about trying to wrestle away the territories taken by Pakistan in the year following the bloody partition. India has tried for years to discredit Pakistan for its use of proxies to inflame the restiveness in Kashmir. While Indian claims gained some traction within the post-9/11 era, its own support to militants in troubled areas of Pakistan, especially Balochistan, and its repressiveness within the Kashmir valley, have eroded the legitimacy of its claims. India's attempt to revoke the special status of Kashmir in 2019, and the subsequent use of increasingly draconian measures to quell separatist tendencies, have not won it much sympathy either. The latest dangerous cross-border escalation on the heels of a terror attack on tourists in Pahalgam has been contained for now following hectic efforts by the current US administration, as well as several Arab states, Turkey and Iran. But the situation remains volatile given the disgruntlement within the Indian-held Kashmir, combined with India's increasingly aggressive posture which seeks to 'punish' Pakistan anytime there is a major act of violence in its side of the line of control. India's attempt to renege on the Indus Water Treaty is another serious issue, which could flare up into a more devastating conflict, if left unresolved. One wonders if there is now going to be more serious debate within India and Pakistan concerning what can be done about this lingering problem. Maybe it is time to revisit the four-point formula put forth during the Musharraf era, which aimed to respect the principle of self-governance within Kashmir and allow Kashmiris freedom of movement across the line of control, without altering the existing borders. Such an arrangement may also include a robust mechanism to contend with other thorny concerns such as the need for equitable water sharing and joint efforts to contend with climate threats posed to the Indus tributaries. It would be ideal if Pakistan and India could hammer out such an arrangement between themselves. Or else, maybe someone can tweet this article to President Trump.
Express Tribune
15-05-2025
- Politics
- Express Tribune
An ecologically sensible response to India on IWT
The writer is an academic and researcher. He is also the author of Development, Poverty, and Power in Pakistan, available from Routledge Listen to article Despite the elation surrounding Pakistan's response to India's post-Pahalgam aggression, many of the country's policymakers are still rightly worried about India's decision to suspend the longstanding Indus Water Treaty (IWT). Pakistan has, thus far, stated that Indian attempts to disrupt the flow of the western rivers flowing from the Indus basin into Pakistan would be considered an act of war. Is it debatable whether India can build sufficient infrastructure at high altitudes to significantly lessen the flow of the three western rivers given to Pakistan by the IWT of 1960? Pakistan can potentially challenge India's unilateral attempts to suspend the treaty via international arbitration mechanisms. Yet, earlier attempts by Pakistan to raise objections to Indian hydroelectric projects, such as the Kishanganga and Baglihar dams, using arbitration avenues provided under the water sharing treaty, proved cumbersome, and did not produce entirely satisfactory outcomes either. The treaty itself is flawed, as it adopted an overly simplistic solution to the water sharing problem between the two rival nations. It merely bifurcated the six rivers flowing out of the Indus Basin. Pakistan was allocated the larger western rivers, and India got to control all the waters in the three eastern rivers, including the Ravi, which has now become a largely dead river due to aggressive Indian damming. India was also allowed to build run-of-the-mill infrastructure on the western rivers, if it did not disrupt water flow into Pakistan. As climate change was not on anyone's radar in 1960, the World Bank brokered treaty did not envision the threat of receding glaciers, which are already disrupting the flow of rivers into both countries. The IWT did not either contend with the increasingly severe problem of pollution, allowing India to dump its wastewater (via the Hudaria, Fazilka and Salemshah drains and the Kanur nullah) into Pakistan. For decades, India has been pumping wastewater effluents into Pakistan. The Hudiara Drain, for instance, originates in the Gurdaspur district in East Punjab, and after being joined by many tributaries in Amritsar, enters Pakistan near Laloo village. This natural storm water nullah now primarily carries sewage water mixed with untreated industrial waste from India. Unfortunately, hundreds of factories on the Pakistani side do the same, before this drain merges with Ravi River, 55 km inside Pakistani territory. Despite the water in Hudiara drain being heavily polluted, numerous villages near the Wagah border grow vegetables irrigated using this wastewater. The Punjab government had a study conducted some years ago to better manage the Hudiara drain, but no practical steps have been taken to check the pollution of the drain by polluters on the Pakistani side, or to use IWT mechanisms to compel India to do the same. Now that India has said that it no longer wants to comply with the treaty, Pakistan should engage relevant arbitration mechanisms to push back against this unreasonable step. It can also take immediate action on its side of the border to create pressure within India to respect Pakistan's status as a lower riparian state. One way in which Pakistan can push back against Indian belligerence as an upper riparian is to block Indian drains discharging untreated waste into its territory. Ukraine did the same with drains flowing into its territory to pollute the Dnieper River from Russia, so this is a technically feasible option. However, Pakistan will need to exercise caution if it aims to implement this measure, so it does not seem to be endorsing India's illegal abeyance of the longstanding water sharing treaty. Perhaps Pakistan can reach out to the World Bank, and other relevant experts, to see if such an action can be taken without undermining the basic principle of transborder water sharing. Pakistan will have a much easier time making the case of preventing India from pumping untreated effluents into naturals storm drains coming into its territory, if Pakistan itself stops doing the same on its own side of the border.
Express Tribune
08-05-2025
- Business
- Express Tribune
Surging global military spending
The writer is an academic and researcher. He is also the author of Development, Poverty, and Power in Pakistan, available from Routledge Listen to article Climate change, lingering inequalities and the resulting deprivations prevalent around the world need more attention and greater resource commitments. However, what we are seeing instead, in our tumultuous world, is a rise in military spending. Amidst ongoing crises within the Middle East, Russia's war in Ukraine and rising geopolitical tensions due to great power competition, countries around the world are funneling more funds towards defence spending at a pace unmatched since the end of the Cold War. According to the latest estimates by the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI), military expenditure worldwide rose by 9.4% in 2024 alone. Despite cumulative military expenses having exceeded $2.7 trillion, SIPRI estimates that many countries are now poised to boost military capabilities, which will lead to even higher defence budgets in coming years. While it would certainly take much less money than is being poured into already bloated defence expenditures to vastly improve the lives of all marginalised people around the world, the desire to continue investing in conventional security seems a more urgent priority for those in positions of power. The US remains the world's largest defence spender, which allocated nearly $1 trillion to its war machinery in 2024. While China ranked second in overall military expenditure in the same year, with its allocation estimated to be under a third of what the US spent. However, put together, these two great powers are responsible for almost half of the global military spending during this past year. Other significant defence budget spikes occurred in countries which are either actively engaged in conflicts, or else, are anticipating the possibility of conflict soon. Israel, for instance, increased its defence spending by 65% during 2024 as it continued its assault on Gaza, and beyond. Russia's defence budget also grew by at least 38% in the past year. Due to Russia's ongoing conflict in Ukraine, most NATO countries have now also increased their military commitments, partly in response to Russia's belligerence, as well as due to President Trump's pressure on Europe to assume more responsibility for its own defence. Germany, for instance, increased spending on defence by 28% in 2024, and is poised to continue building up its military capabilities in the coming years. Within the Indo-Pacific region, China's growing military might has also triggered other regional powers like Japan to begin paying more attention to defence also. Japan's military budget rose by 21% last year, which is its highest hike in over seventy years. Even smaller countries like the Philippines have begun spending more on defence prompted by ongoing territorial disputes with China in the South China Sea. On the other hand, India was again found to be the world's fifth-largest military spender during this past year. While India's defence spending has grown by 42% over this last decade, SIPRI points out that it spends nine times more than Pakistan on its military. Given renewed tensions, Pakistan may be compelled to raise its military expenditures too, despite its economic woes, which will invariably lead to lesser resources available for catering to the unmet needs of its citizenry. Unfortunately, the ongoing global spike in military expenditure is being accompanied by major cuts in aid for human development. USAID, the largest bilateral donor, has been gutted by the incoming administration. Many other rich European counties have begun slashing their aid budgets too, partly in the effort to divert these funds to defence, without imposing direct pain on their own citizens. However, the increasingly integrated nature of the world implies that increased deprivation, diseases or destabilisation in one part of the world can no longer be easily contained. Yet, global leaders continue pouring in more money into their defensive and offensive capabilities, instead of trying to make the world a fairer and more habitable place.
Express Tribune
30-04-2025
- Politics
- Express Tribune
Insufficient and lopsided green transitions
The writer is an academic and researcher. He is also the author of Development, Poverty, and Power in Pakistan, available from Routledge Listen to article Given that 2024 was the hottest year on record, and that climate disasters are continuing to cause havoc around the world with increasing severity, the need to take climate change seriously is obvious. Yet, curbing carbon emissions is not proving easy. Powerful fossil fuel lobbies continue resisting the need to curb carbon emissions. Being unable to secure the net-zero emission targets, the last climate summit in Dubai settled on trying to transition away from fossil fuels instead. This much more fluid goal of decreasing carbon emissions seems callous given the stress being placed on varied natural systems, which enable life to exist on our planet. However, climate deniers seem to enjoy popular support even in the most powerful countries in the world. After winning the US elections, President Trump has again pulled his country out of the already floundering Paris climate agreement and even cut back aid to help poorer countries become climate resilient. The desire to continue making profits has taken precedence over the need to allow Earth to recuperate from the intensifying human assault on its delicate eco-systems. Unfortunately, prominent strategies to contend with climate change are mostly based on market-based imperatives, which seek to offer win-win solutions whereby profit-making can continue taking place alongside any proposed solutions to contend with climate change. Emphasis is being placed on minimising productivity losses, for instance, and allowing companies to pay poorer countries to help offset their carbon footprint via undertaking reforestation drives. Such half-hearted efforts relying on businesses to make economies greener are not sufficient. Yet, deploying neoliberal logic to contend with climate change leads to reliance on the powerful actors, such as large corporations, that have triggered climate change. Conversely, the notion of climate justice points to the unequal impacts of climate change on marginalised populations, and it seeks to identify climate solutions which ease the burdens of climate impacts on marginalised communities, while enhancing their participation in the efforts to mitigate climate threats. Ensuring climate justice in practice, however, is not easy. There is a so-called 'tragedy of the commons' at play when it comes to preservation of natural resources, which refers to the tendency of individuals to overuse a shared resource to maximise their own self-interest. For instance, despite their reliance on forests, the need for fuel, grazing livestock and growing more crops to earn an income have led to massive deforestation by the same poor communities which then suffer most from deforestation impacts, such as increased heat, soil erosion, desertification and flooding. A similar problem is now becoming apparent with the profusion of solar panels that are enabling smallholder farmers who lack access to irrigated water to exploit fast depleting groundwater sources. Operationalising climate justice within efforts to mitigate against climate threats is not easy. However, ignoring the need for climate justice is even more problematic as it can further compound the miseries of those already facing the brunt of climate change. Myopic approaches to conservation in the past have produced a range of problematic outcomes. Consider, for instance, disturbing reports of conservation rangers using violent means to prevent local communities from encroaching on nature reserves in Africa. However, many resource-starved governments in poorer countries are presently struggling to secure climate finance and investments that overtly rely on market-based strategies. In Sindh, for instance, a public-private partnership model is being used to restore mangroves to earn carbon credits. While mangrove regrowth is immensely beneficial, the extent to which a business-driven revenue generating model trying to maximise regrowth to earn cash via carbon trading can adequately look after the communities dependent on mangroves remains a contested issue. The need to pay more attention to climate justice issues by those who formulate climate mitigation policies thus remains imperative.
