F-16s & disinformation

AMIDST the fog of war, the truth is often lost as propaganda is trotted out by the
belligerents to confuse and demoralise their opponent. Indeed, ‘information
warfare’ is an area that many modern militaries have become skilled in. It is only
later that the truth is salvaged, and what emerges can be sobering. Following the
Pulwama episode, which brought Pakistan and India to the brink of war not too
long ago, jingoism and war hysteria were at their peak on both sides, with the
Indian media playing a particularly vitriolic role in drumming up support for war.
However, as a report in the American publication Foreign Policy has lately
revealed, the Indians’ claim that their military had shot down a Pakistani F-16
fighter jet during the crisis has turned out to be fictitious. Basing this claim on
sources within the US defence establishment, the publication has said that all of
Pakistan’s F-16s were “present and accounted for”. This admission should be
sobering for the ultranationalist hawks in the Indian establishment as well as
elements within the Indian media. It shows jingoism and war hysteria cannot
always cover up the facts, which often emerge sooner or later.

Perhaps the lesson to be learnt from the whole post-Pulwama crisis in general, and the
tale of the F-16 in particular, is that when disinformation is spread and promoted in such
a toxic manner, it feeds into the larger narrative and ends up vitiating the atmosphere.
This can have grave consequences, such as dragging two nuclear-armed states close
to war. Moreover, when disinformation becomes the norm, even after the crisis abates,
the road towards normalisation is all the more difficult. The war clouds may have
dissipated over South Asia for the moment, but the mistrust between India and Pakistan
currently is at extremely high levels. Chances of bilateral dialogue are quite slim, while
even progress on the Kartarpur Corridor project has stalled. Perhaps matters may
normalise once the Indian elections have been held. But the current atmosphere of
mistrust created by disinformation and demonisation remains a major obstacle in the
path of normal ties, and is likely to persist for some time. Perhaps that is why, in the
interest of peace in South Asia, it is essential that both establishments deal with
regional crises in a constructive and statesmen-like manner, instead of letting untruths
and half-truths poison the narrative.
 Karachi donkeys’ role

NO one would argue that Karachi doesn’t have a serious garbage crisis. The
sticking point, however, is how to solve the megacity’s solid waste management
problem. Sindh’s political class has so far responded to the issue in two ways:
implement large internationally funded projects spearheaded by foreign and local
consultants, or outsource this essential public service to private foreign and local
firms. Both methods have proved disappointing, costly and unsustainable, as
they neglect meaningful engagement with civil society, academia and impacted
communities, and fail to account for the existing undocumented infrastructure of
garbage collection. But another solution, one that acknowledges ground realities
as opposed to taking a top-down approach, was recently proposed by the local
chapter of an equine welfare charity. Highlighting the vital role Karachi’s donkeys
play in moving the city’s refuse, particularly in underserviced areas, as well as
the risks to donkeys and their owners, it proposed not only providing adequate
support and services to these informal workers, but also integrating them with
Karachi’s municipal and solid waste management authorities.

The suggestion is sound, as it manages to address several overlapping issues at once:

providing public services to vulnerable communities; regularising informal livelihoods;
and building a culture for animal welfare. Tens of thousands of Karachi’s households
rely on the operations of donkey carts. Relatively small-scale interventions such as
veterinary care for working donkeys, social safety nets for their owners, and training and
resources to limit exposure to health risks, can mean the difference between
sustainable livelihoods and deeper poverty. This, of course, is only one part of the
equation to resolving Karachi’s garbage crisis. But, given the pollution-linked and
vector-borne diseases associated with it, policymakers must acknowledge that
accountable, responsive governance is not brought about through flashy infrastructure
projects alone. A pro-poor strategy that recognises the needs of marginalised
communities can be both efficient and humane.
 Political circus

POLITICS in general is not for the faint-hearted; in countries like Pakistan, with its
stunted democratic institutions, it can be an especially ugly business.

Anyone who had hoped, naively perhaps, that the election last year would bring down
the political temperature must by now have been thoroughly disabused of the notion.

The acrimony between the PTI government and the opposition, within and outside
parliament, shows no sign of abating, or at least abating for long enough to appear
more than a just a strategic and self-serving blip.

The latest back-and-forth between Prime Minister Imran Khan and Asif Ali Zardari is a
classic illustration of the vitiated atmosphere.

Mr Zardari, as the noose of accountability tightens around him still further — likely as
part of a bigger, more Machiavellian exercise indicative of the perils to democracy —
exhorted PPP supporters on Thursday to march on Islamabad and oust the
government.

Mr Khan could have chosen to ignore that provocative statement. Instead, while
addressing a public gathering in Khyber district, he declared he could arrange a
container for the PPP leader in Islamabad — alluding to his own extended dharna atop
one in late 2014 — but that Mr Zardari would not be able to sustain such a protest for
more than a week.

While much of the civilian leadership seems to have descended into a squalid
free-for-all, the PTI as the party in government has greater responsibility to set the tone
for political discourse.

Instead, it has goaded and sidelined the opposition, even if that has thrown a wrench in
legislative proceedings; which is perverse, because these tactics largely derail the
government’s own agenda.
For example, it took nearly six months to form the National Assembly’s standing and
functional committees because Mr Khan was adamant Shahbaz Sharif not be given the
PAC chairmanship, a post that by parliamentary convention goes to a member of the
opposition.

There is a similar impasse over a proposed briefing by the PTI government to

lawmakers about NAP implementation; the opposition demands it be held in parliament
while the government wants only the heads of the parliamentary parties to be privy to it.

Another stand-off between both sides, which is only just showing signs of being
resolved, pertains to the appointment of two ECP members.

The PTI, with its razor-thin majority in parliament, can ill afford to be so inflexible.

At the same time, the opposition must stop exploiting its numerical strength to be
needlessly obstructionist on matters that must be urgently addressed. It should also
show the maturity to rise above its parochial interests — largely tied to the fortunes of
certain beleaguered party leaders — and, instead, act as the representatives of the
people.

The effects of the prevailing dysfunction on governance are deleterious. Politicians in a

fight to the death against each other ultimately hollow out the democratic process from
within.