I'm a bad blogger...

I have often felt that being in the middle of a situation seldom leaves time to reflect upon and write about that situation. Reflection requires time and space; thoughts and perceptions are often much more accurate after the fact. As a result, with fantastic events happening in Pakistan everyday, it's a struggle to stay on top of thing, let alone write and reflect for public consumption. Being "in the middle" is one reason I have not blogged about events in Pakistan and throughout South Asia for a while -- not having enough time to read enough to write enough has been the other problem. I apologize for failing to write posts when important events took place and vow to do a much better job in the new year. Onward through the fog!

Some Thoughts on the Situation—Pakistan

Musharraf's declaration of emergency rule last Saturday put a number of questions into focus for both people in Pakistan and key players in the West. Where do we draw the line between "the war on terror" and protecting and promoting democracy? What if those two objectives become mutually exclusive? Musharraf seems to think that—at least for the time being in Pakistan—those two objectives can no longer co-exist. In order to further efforts in the "war on terror", democracy and civil liberties needed to be curbed in Pakistan. In the West, however, leaders tend to argue that the two objectives are one in the same. Promoting and preserving democracy is the entire reasoning behind fighting the "war on terror", but the two are not the same, and we must now look at where the line separating the two lies.

As the BBC rightly argues,

But events in Pakistan have forced the president to weigh up his two key foreign policy commitments: fighting the "global war on terror" and his promise to spread democracy and freedom.

In Musharraf's Pakistan, Bush's logic for leading the "war on terror" crumbles and we are left with a mess of rising extremism and diminishing civil/human/democratic rights. Of course, this is not the first instance in which the rhetoric of U.S. Foreign Policy has failed to match the reality, but it is a telling illustration because all of the issues—of power, politics, leadership and democracy—were at the forefront of political news coming from Pakistan leading up to the declaration of emergency. Had the news and rhetoric from Pakistan not been flooded with hints at, questions about, and optimism for the (possibility of a) "return to democracy", emergency rule might seem less like a slap in the face. For Musharraf, the charade is up. Regardless of his pledge to hold elections, and his continued vows to remove his uniform, his true motivations—to keep himself in power and to have it his way or no way—have been revealed. Earlier, I was willing to let him stay in power and to usher in democracy through a period of semi-democratic transition, but now, I hope Musharraf realizes into what he has gotten himself. No one can be happy—no the people, not the parties, not the military—with what he has done, and there will be repercussions from more sides than he could have imagined. (I may be premature in making these pseudo-threats, given the BBC's analysis that the odds are in his favor, but emergency rule serves no one but he who declares it.)

Then, there's the issue of Benazir Bhutto...if she can mobilize the people (against Musharraf), as she seems to think she can, there might be some hope for her future as a politician. But if she can't mobilize the people, her back-room dealings with Musharraf could go against her in the future (i.e., after military rule is lifted). Like others who question the career politican's motivations, the BBC asks:

Will Ms Bhutto's ultimatum throw this high-stakes game off track? And if so, what are her chances of success in a situation in which the government appears determined to quell all dissent?

As these questions suggest, the game is certainly one with high stakes.

With Ms Bhutto adopting the course of confrontation, Gen Musharraf stands to lose the only credible political ally that the international community believes could be instrumental in the country's crucial fight against Islamic militants.

They believe that even a small turnout at Friday's public meeting in Rawalpindi will set the tone for united protests which have so far evaded Pakistan's political forces.

But with the police lined up to stop protesters, does Bhutto have the determination and people-power to bring about legitimate regime change...or is she simply cashing in upon an opportunity to secure power for herself?

How much lenience will the U.S. show? How far with Bhutto's protests go?

Only time will let us know.

Musharraf's "victory"

From the BBC:
Musharraf wins presidential vote

Gen Pervez Musharraf has easily won a vote to be re-elected Pakistan's president, even though it is unclear if his candidacy was legal.

He won all but five of the votes cast in parliament's two houses and swept the ballots in the four provincial assemblies, election officials said.

From Pakistan's Dawn
Musharraf sweeps vote, victory hangs on court

Pakistani military ruler Pervez Musharraf swept most votes (384 out of 702) in a presidential election Saturday but he has to wait for the Supreme Court to confirm the legality of his bid before being declared the winner. His landslide in an election largely boycotted by the opposition was widely expected. Members of the two-chamber parliament and four provincial assemblies voted for president. In the two houses of parliament (Senate and the National Assembly), Musharraf won 252 of 257 votes cast. His closest rival, Wajihuddin Ahmed, got two votes, while three votes were declared invalid, Chief Election Commissioner Qazi Mohammad Farooq told the National Assembly.

Three other contesting candidates, Senate chairman Mohammadmian Soomro, Musharraf's covering candidate; PPP's Makhdoom Ameen Fahim and his covering candidate Faryal Talpur did not earn any vote. Musharraf had also won most votes cast in all four provincial assemblies (Punjab 253, Sindh 104, NWFP 31 and Balochistan 33), officials said, and ended up with a total of 384 electoral college votes out of 702, according to a Reuters tally. "This result shows the people want continuity of policy," Prime Minister Shaukat Aziz told reporters in parliament. Coinciding with the vote, lawyers behind a campaign against Musharraf led anti-government protests in the four provincial capitals - Karachi, Lahore, Peshawar and Quetta. Police fired tear gas shells to disperse lawyers pelting rocks at the North West Frontier Province assembly in Peshawar, where protesters also torched an armoured police vehicle. But opposition's call for a protest strike by and large went without public support.

From Pakistan's Nation
"Another term?"

General Pervez Musharraf bagged 252 out of total 257 cast votes while Justice (Retd) Wajihuddin got two votes, and three votes were rejected, said an unofficial announcement.
Although President Musharraf sailed right through the presidential election on Saturday, yet his landmark victory is still incomplete as the opposition has boycotted the poll, and the Supreme Court is yet to decide his eligibility to stand in the election in uniform. The apex court on the other day had stayed official notification of the poll's result.
General Musharraf was [the] unanimous candidate of the ruling Pakistan Muslim League (PML-Q) and its allied parties, while Justice (Retd) Wajihuddin was the nominee of lawyers' community. Makhdoom Amin Fahim at the same time was the candidate of Peoples Party Parliamentarian (PPP-P). However, the PPP-P abstained from voting.
Most of the Opposition parties boycotted the balloting, saying it was unconstitutional. The All Parties Democratic Movement (APDM) had already resigned from the assemblies to protest against Musharraf's re-election in uniform, terming the whole process of the election unconstitutional, undemocratic and unethical.

From India's Hindustan Times
Musharraf sweeps vote, victory hangs on court

Pakistani military ruler Pervez Musharraf swept the most votes in a presidential election on Saturday but he has to wait for the Supreme Court to confirm the legality of his bid before he can be declared winner.

Doubts over whether the election result will stand have fuelled uncertainty as the nuclear-armed Muslim country enters a transition from military to civilian rule that will culminate in national polls due by mid-January.

Update Pakistan: the timeline continues...countdown to the election begins

September 20: Pakistan's Election Commission announces the date for the next Presidential Election. Petitions to run must be filed by September 27; Elections will be held October 6.

On the same day Osama bin Laden releases another statement condemning Musharraf's anti-insurgent activity and encouraging the people of Pakistan to reject Musharraf's government.

September 19: President General Pervez Musharraf agrees to step down from his military post if he is re-elected in October. There are still a number of constitutional questions surrounding his ability to serve as president even after he leaves the military.

September 14: Former prime minister Benazir Bhutto announced the date of her return. Deal or no deal (with Musharraf, that is), she will return to Pakistan on October 18th.

September 10: After much anticipation, Nawaz Sharif flies home to Pakistan. He is detained upon his arrival, then deported to Saudi Arabia.

Pakistan: Worst Case Scenario?

Talks between Bhutto and Musharraf are continuing, but the glimmer of hope that last weeks power-sharing news seemed to reveal has all but passes. Musharraf's aides have called some of Bhutto's demands "unrealistic" and the on-going political discussion has had little success stemming violence in the region.

What will happen if Bhutto and Musharraf fail to reach an agreement? What will happen if they fail to reach an agreement and Bhutto maintains her vow to return later this year? What is Sharif is arrested when he returns on September 10th?

Bangladesh's exiled prime minster and her son were arrested upon their return...could the same thing happen to Bhutto and Sharif despite everyone's hoping otherwise?

Even if everything (separation of executive/military power, sharing power with other leaders, etc.) progresses smoothly, it is still not guaranteed that Bhutto, Musharraf and Sharif can save Pakistan.

Update: India, Pakistan, Afghanistan

It's been a week since my last post. (gasp!) Here's an update on current events on the subcontinent.

India:
Twin bombings killed 42 in Hyderabad India over the weekend. As The New York Times reports, the bombings have raised concerns over the spread of sectarian violence in India.

Members of parliament have begun what will likely be two days of contentious debate over the proposed "123" nuclear deal with the United States.

Pakistan:
Musharraf and Bhutto are approaching the final stages of a power-sharing arrangement. The deal between these two former (?) enemies marks a big step toward democracy and progress in Pakistan.

Pakistan's exiled former PM Nawaz Sharif has set September 10th as the date of his return.

Afghanistan:
A new report published by the International Crisis Group stresses the importance of eliminating corruption and depoliticizing the police force in Afghanistan.

All of the South Korean hostages taken by the Taliban in mid-July have been released in exchange for South Korea's pledge to remove all military and non-military personnel from the country.

Ban on Female Bartenders? // Do Delhi's men get drunk too easily?

Last year a 92-year-old ban that prevented women from tending bar and serving alcohol was lifted. Now, before the ban could be lifted, officials in Delhi pushed the matter back into courts claiming bars are unfit places for women to work. However, their reasoning behind this argument hinges upon a strange disconnected between gender stereotypes.

According to the BBC,

The Delhi government argues that the city's men cannot hold their drink and that is why it is unsafe to allow women bartenders in pubs and restaurants.

Though Delhi has a very high crime rate, this type of logic—and the stats they've provided to demonstrate their argument—seem highly specious. Yes, the crime rate is high and yes, alcohol tends to increase violence, but does that mean women should be barred from a profession because there is potential for danger? The city seems to be over-stepping its bounds when it comes to looking out for its citizens. Plus, if men have such a hard time "holding" (i.e., tolerating) their alcohol consumption, should measures be put into place to curb their consumption, rather than attempting to remove their potential victims from positions of danger?


Women and bar tending has had an interesting relationship for as long as the two concepts have been in existence. In American history, female bartenders have faced opposition from a variety of forces bent on preserving the sanctity of the male watering hole, concerned with the safety and morality of women, and worried about the implications of the oft-times lethal combination of mixed company and alcohol. As cultural context for a Supreme Court ruling, a summary paper of the Goesaert v. Cleary case provides a good overview of the issues involved in mid-20th century America and the objections women bartenders faced from their male counterparts:

Women bartenders were described as magnets for controversy, a threat to the jobs of men and an affront to the male-dominated bar atmosphere. In addition to speaking out against barmaids, bartenders' unions pressured bar owners to fire or refuse to hire female bartenders and submitted proposals to state legislatures prohibiting the employment of women as bartenders. Bartenders argued that women would be bad conversationalists, inefficient and flirtatious. The presence of women bartenders, the argument went, also would give wives reasons to keep husbands from patronizing bars and endanger women's morals.

The Court's decision aptly suggests one stereotypical image associated with women and alehouse/pubs/bars/clubs (and their myriad iterations under such titles), that of the "spirghtly and ribald" alewife drawn up in Shakespeare's world. However, this image was not enough to convince the Court that women should have Equal Protection under the Law to serve alcohol in an establishment. Alcohol, as the court noted, was well within the jurisdiction of the Michigan legislature and it had every right to control its distribution. The Court decision claims:

The fact that women may now have achieved the virtues that men have long claimed as their prerogatives and now indulge in vices that men have long practiced, does not preclude the States from drawing a sharp line between the sexes, certainly, in such matters as the regulation of the liquor traffic.

Dispensing with the idea that women and men can serve equally as dispensers of alcoholic potions, the Court ruling continues:

Since bartending by women may, in the allowable legislative judgment, give rise to moral and social problems against which it may devise preventive measures, the legislature need not go to the full length of prohibition if it believes that as to a defined group of females other factors are operating which either eliminate or reduce the moral and social problems otherwise calling for prohibition.

Personally, I would like to know which "moral and social" problems women tending bar might engender to which male bartenders would be immune. Since the ruling specifically separates the role of tending bar and serving alcohol as a table waitress, the issue of keeping men, (non-spousal) women and alcohol separate seems obsolete. Likewise, the argument that waitresses can serve alcohol under the supervision of a male owner or bar tender seems tenuous at best. One cannot make the assumption that if a female is waiting tables in a restaurant then that establishment is automatically owned and operated by her male supervisor.

In India, however, the situation seems almost humorous, while I don't believe the law should be able to prevent women from tending bar, I would find it deeply satisfying if the women bar tenders decided to strike or walk out one day on the grounds that Delhi's men can't handle their alcohol.

Even as we seemingly evolve past life's other complexities, we still seem hung up on the alcohol issue. "Why is that?" she pondered, turning the stem of her glass between her fingers...