Implementation of NAP

AN intensive series of civil-military meetings later, a mutually acceptable

solution appears to have been reached. The National Action Plan will be jumpstarted by a new implementation committee that is to be headed by the
national security adviser. Perhaps, then, more than a year and a half after
NAP was drawn up, the much-needed, multipronged fight against terrorism,
militancy and extremism will be taken up with vigour. That the newly
expressed resolve is a joint effort of the civilians and the military is also to be
applauded institutions working together is the only realistic path towards
victory for the country in the long fight against militancy. However, necessary
as civil-military coordination is, the new mechanism to be put in place raises
a number of questions.

First, why is it that movement and progress only appear to occur in the wake
of a devastating bombing? NAP itself was drawn up after the wrenching
attack and merciless killings at the Army Public School, Peshawar. The Easter
bombing in Lahore earlier this year yielded a similar rush by the state to be
seen to be doing something new to fight terrorism. Now, the Quetta carnage
of last week has become the catalyst for the latest push against terrorism
and militancy. Must the state always be reactive in its tactics and strategy?
Second, why does civil-military coordination invariably look like
encroachment by the military on civilian turf? The NSA is only nominally a
civilian position today the office is held by a retired general, Nasser Janjua.
He displaced a civilian, Sartaj Aziz, who remains the foreign adviser to the
prime minister. Furthermore, does the NSA really have the bureaucratic and
organisational support that, for example, the interior ministry has? Moreover,
given the composition of the NAP implementation committee, will it actually
function as intended or simply become a forum for instructions to be given by
the military to the civilians?

Third, will Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif move to address the problems
festering among his senior ministerial team? The defence minister appears to
have been virtually shut out from national security discussions of late and in
any case appears preoccupied with his principal portfolio, the power sector.
The interior minister and the finance minister appear to only grudgingly get
along, while the foreign adviser seems to be pursuing policies that do not
quite chime with the current situation that the country is facing internally and
externally. Can any government realistically fight terrorism, militancy and
extremism if its own house is not in order? That the principals on the political

and military sides of the state have recognised the need for more urgency
and deeper commitment in the fight against militancy is welcome. But that
very characterisation may be part of the problem: if there remain sides and
inter- and intra-institutional differences and divisions, can unity of purpose
really be achieved?

Kashmir dialogue

DESPITE the toxic atmosphere currently poisoning Pak-India relations, it is

welcome that Islamabad has reached out to New Delhi to discuss the Kashmir
problem. On Monday, the foreign secretary gave the Indian high
commissioner in Islamabad a letter intended for his counterpart in New Delhi,
inviting him to discuss the issue. Instead of indulging in a blame game, this is
the mature way to handle the situation. For over a month now, India-held
Kashmir has witnessed severe unrest. Around 70 people have been killed in
the violence, which was sparked by the killing of militant commander Burhan
Wani by Indian security forces. A large number of youngsters have suffered
eye injuries with some being blinded due to the pellet guns used by
security men. And while the Indian establishment claims Pakistan is fuelling
unrest in IHK, it is quite clear that the uprising is indigenous in nature, fuelled
by New Delhis repressive methods in the held territory. Moreover, Narendra
Modis remarks, repeated during his Red Fort speech on Aug 15,
unnecessarily dragging Balochistan, Gilgit-Baltistan and Azad Kashmir into
the debate, have not helped matters on the bilateral front, or in addressing
the unrest in IHK. Hence, in the midst of all this, Pakistans call for dialogue
makes eminent sense in fact, this can be an opportunity to revive the PakIndia dialogue process.

India should realise its strategy in the held territory has not borne fruit;
militarising Kashmir has only increased the locals resentment against New
Delhi, which has tried to paint the uprising as a mere law-and-order issue.
The current unrest has roots in the history of the region, and political
stalemate. Internally, the Indian government, through its ruling allies in
Srinagar, the PDP, must reach out to the disaffected populace and work to
calm the situation instead of unleashing the security forces. As Kashmirs
recent history has shown, brutal state repression will only further alienate the
Kashmiris, and cause disenchanted youth to pick up the gun. India cannot
deny that, despite the passage of several decades since the dispute

emerged, Kashmir remains the flashpoint in the subcontinent and the prime
reason for the absence of normal ties with Pakistan. That is why the Indian
foreign secretary should respond positively to Pakistans invitation; both sides
need to frankly and sincerely discuss Kashmir and all other issues.
Grandstanding and indulging in cross-border verbal duels will only make
matters worse.

Solar tariffs

THE good news is that there is ample investor interest in Pakistans solar
power sector, whether off grid or on. The bad news is that we are contracting
some of the most expensive solar electricity in the world. The first upfront
solar tariff announced by Nepra offered up to Rs17 per unit for utility scale
solar power plants. That was revised down to Rs11 by December 2015,
though reportedly some private producers have managed to obtain higher
tariffs anyway. Now we have a communication from the water and power
ministry urging Nepra to find ways to bring these tariffs down rather than up.
Considering that solar tariffs are receiving bids as low as the equivalent of
Rs4 around the world, in some cases even lower, what Pakistan is offering is
clearly far beyond global norms and needs to be reduced urgently.

But there is one problem. The first, and largest solar power plant set up in the
country as a partnership between the government of Punjab and a Chinese
venture, has already locked in the exorbitantly high Rs16 tariff. All
subsequent investments coming into the Quaid-i-Azam Solar Park in
Bahawalpur have taken this higher tariff, and all other investors are being
lectured about the need to reduce the tariff. This has created a perception
that the government favoured a particular party, and then changed the terms
for all the rest. Nobody will disagree with the water and power ministry about
the need to bring down solar tariffs in the country, but how should we rid
ourselves of this niggling thought that, somehow, we have all been had?
Perhaps a way can be found to reduce the tariff for the original parties too
that came in under the first upfront regime. That would certainly add
credibility to the ministrys concerns about the high cost of solar power in the
country, at a time when solar prices are plummeting around the world. Lets
play hard, but lets also play fair