THE United States and India have signed a Basic Exchange and Cooperation Agreement which is expected to boost their bilateral defence and military ties at a time when India is facing a tense stand-off with China in Ladakh.
American Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and Defence Secretary Mark Esper flew into New Delhi to sign the pact with their Indian counterparts. BECA has finalised the completion of four pacts of a strategic nature between the two countries. BECA will give India access to classified geospatial data as well as critical information that has military application. The regional tour by these senior US officials, which has included visits to Sri Lanka and the Maldives, is aimed at countering growing Chinese influence.
In this respect, the US secretary of state raised the issue of India’s border tensions with China and expressed solidarity with New Delhi. In Sri Lanka, the US official called China a “predator”. The Chinese foreign ministry responded by saying Mr Pompeo’s accusations reflected his “Cold War mentality” and urged him to “stop sowing discord between China and regional countries as well as undermining the regional peace and stability”.
The US may have its strategic reasons to block Chinese influence in the region, but it should be well aware of the complexities that are weaved into interstate regional dynamics here. Cosying up to India is one way in which Washington wants to resist the domination of China but this has a direct impact on its relations with Islamabad.
Within the larger domain of superpower rivalry, Pakistan has followed a well-calibrated policy to maintain constructive relations with both China and the US. This suits us and there is no reason why we would want to weaken our ties with one power in favour of the other. With China, we have maintained a strategically close and well-aligned relationship since the 1970s, and both states have come even closer with the rolling out of CPEC. With the US, we continue to have a strong relationship which is currently paying dividends in many areas including Afghanistan.
It is a delicate balance that we have maintained but it can be adversely impacted if the US starts to enhance India’s military capabilities that can constitute a clear and present danger to Pakistan. Washington knows well how India attempted a failed bombing inside Pakistan in early 2019 and nearly brought the two countries to war. It was Pakistan’s strategic restraint, despite thwarting Indian aggression, which avoided an armed conflict.
However, the Narendra Modi government’s threatening statements against Pakistan continue to keep the region under the threat of violence. The US should weigh these factors well and ensure its actions contribute to promoting peace instead of feeding into India’s belligerence. This is a complex region and Washington should deal with it as such.
CII decision
OVER the years, the Council of Islamic Ideology has generated its fair share of criticism for coming up with controversial observations. However, this time in a welcome break from the past, it has ruled, in the matter of the construction of a Hindu temple in Islamabad, that there was nothing in the Constitution or Sharia to bar the provision of a place of worship for a minority group in the country. The dispute had been referred to it by the government of Prime Minister Imran Khan. CII chairman Qibla Ayaz also took into account the concerns of those who had opposed the building of the temple complex in the capital at state expense. Hence, the government cannot spend directly on creating this temple and the community centre meant for weddings and other ceremonies. For such funds, a new head would have to be created exclusively for the community of which 3,000 members hope to use the promised facility as well as the nearby old temple in Saidpur village. The decision also allows Saidpur temple and an adjoining dharmsala to be handed over for use by the Hindu community. Hindu leaders are hoping that the project can be executed without further hiccups. In agreement are others who believe in a dignified coexistence based on the principles of tolerance and mutual respect — values that many in this country will reflect on, especially today on the birthday of the Holy Prophet (PBUH).
In these highly volatile times there is a need for countries, leaders and the public in general to shun all forms of discrimination — social, economic or legal — in national life. All too often, communal feelings have run high, compromising the safety of minority groups. Patient deliberation and course correction are needed to resolve issues such as forced conversions. This government has taken some positive steps towards recognising religious freedoms — such as inaugurating the Kartarpur Corridor. However, a greater effort is needed at all levels to ensure that minorities don’t remain on the fringes of society.
A raucous house
IN a democracy, parliament is responsible for the key functions of scrutiny, legislation and debate. Yet, in the current environment, our National Assembly sessions have been dominated by name-calling, unsavoury speeches and obnoxious behaviour.
In this week’s episode of what can be dubbed ‘the chronicles of chaos’, the chair of the lower house surprised everyone by ordering the ejection of a protesting MNA. In a dramatic scene, the speaker instructed the sergeant-at-arms to escort a PPP lawmaker out of the house, after he loudly protested that his question regarding the tax returns of the prime minister’s advisers had been ignored.
Although a senior PPP MNA tried to pacify the deputy speaker by tendering an apology and asked the chair to withdraw his ruling, Mr Qasim Khan Suri insisted he would allow the lawmaker to sit in the house only if he exited the premises first and returned with his permission.
Similar scenes of utter pandemonium have sadly become a defining feature of the proceedings of the National Assembly. Instead of performing their functions of scrutiny, legislative business and debate for the public good, sessions have been reduced to shouting matches with no regard for the sanctity of the house.
If one were to examine the rules governing parliamentary procedure, it would be amply clear that MNAs belonging to both the treasury and opposition benches violate nearly every point relating to decorum. But though the blame must be apportioned to both, the responsibility of bringing effective legislation lies primarily with the government — and on this count, it has failed miserably.
Its relationship with the opposition members is so toxic that it is near impossible to engage in any constructive debate both inside and outside the Assembly. While both sides should exhibit higher levels of courtesy and fight the tendency to shout each other down, it is the government that must provide an environment conducive to vigorous, healthy debate to enable sound legislation. Instead, all too often unhealthy politics has seen the government bypass parliament in legislative matters through ordinances — a dangerous trend that undermines democratic values as the arbitrary decrees seek to circumvent parliamentary opposition to government policy.
The government should show maturity and rethink its approach on engagement, or it will continue to rely on questionable means of lawmaking. This will dilute the democratic character of the Constitution by taking the power of legislation away from the people.
