Tribute to Sahibzada Yaqub Khan

Sahibzada Yaqub Khan left this world at 95 with a smile on his face. Very few people knew about the pain hidden behind his smile. He was a soldier tuned diplomat and never liked wars. He used to remember Sullivan brothers who were all killed in 2nd World War.

These five brothers were serving US Navy together as Sailors on a ship called USS Juneau. Japanese attacked their ship in 1942 and all five were killed.

Sahibzada Yaqub Khan said brothers were unlucky because they got killed together. After a brief pause he would say but they were lucky because they were serving in a same Army to fight a common enemy!

He never shared his personal war experiences which always haunted him till his death. Sahibzada Yaqub Khan and his brother Sahibzada Yunus Khan served together in British Army as young officers during 2nd World War. Both earned Indian General Service Medal (IGMS).

Yaqub was captured by Italian and German Army near Egypt-Libya border in 1942. He learned Italian and German languages during his captivity. He was released after the war was over.

The year 1947 separated the two brothers who belonged to the royal family of Rampur. Major Sahibzada Yaqub Khan opted for Pakistan Army and his elder brother Major Sahibzada Yunus Khan decided to serve Indian Army.

Within one year both Khans were leading their battalions from opposite sides in 1948 in the mountains of Kashmir. The two brothers met face-to-face with guns in their hands spitting out bullets in rapid fire. A bullet fired from the gun of Major Yunus Khan injured Major Yaqub Khan.

When elder brother realized that he injured his younger brother he shouted “don’t grieve Chhotey. We are soldiers and we did our duty”. Later on Colonel Maneckshaw and Colonel Jasbir Singh of Indian Army commended Major Yunus Khan but also said sorry for his brother Yaqub.

The two brothers never contacted each other again because they were serving in opposite Armies until 1960 when Yaqub married an Indian girl Tuba Khaleeli from Kolkata.

Yunus sent greetings to his younger brother in Pakistan on his marriage. Yaqub commanded an armored division of Pak Army during India-Pakistan war of 1965 but at that time his brother Colonel Yunus was retired from Indian Army.

Same Sahibzada Yaqub Khan became a three star General in Pakistan Army in 1971. He was appointed Commander of Eastern Command in Dhaka. In the first week of March 1971 he was ordered to launch a military operation against Awami League lead by Sheikh Mujibur Rehman.

Lt.Gen Sahibzada Yaqub Khan advised military dictator General Yahya Khan to avoid using gun power against democratically elected leaders. He informed military dictator in writing that transfer of power to Sheikh Mujib was the only solution of the crises.

When Yahya refused to listen to his Commander on ground Sahibzada Yaqub Khan resigned. Initially he became target of dictator’s anger but later on he was proved right. Pakistan was divided but he got respect due to his refusal and resignation. At least he was not part of any crime.

Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto knew that Sahibzada Yaqub Khan had command on more than 10 languages including French, German, Italian, Russian, Persian and Arabic. He appointed him Ambassador in France in 1972. When General Ziaul Haq toppled the government of Bhutto in 1977 Sahibzada was serving as Ambassador in Moscow.

He once again decided to act courageously. He advised military dictator General Zia not to hang a politician but Zia never listened to him and hanged Bhutto.

General Zia appointed Sahibzada Yaqub Khan as his Foreign Minister in 1982. Same year Sahibzada Yaqub Khan travelled to Delhi in his official capacity and met his brother after 36 years. They embraced each other with tears in their eyes and never discussed what happened in 1948.

Courtesy: The Bangladesh Chronicle

 

Pakistan must get ready to face IMF

Most of the politicians in Pakistan, being part of the ruling junta or sitting in the opposition, talk ‘bad’ about International Monetary Fund (IMF), mainly to attain political mileage. 

While every political party in opposition blames IMF of economic malice of Pakistan, but no sooner did it comes in power approaches the lender of last resort and often agrees on its (IMF) condition in the name of saving the country from eminent default.

Pakistan and IMF have a long history of love and hate relationship. Since independence Pakistan has entered into 22 bailout programs and also enjoys the distinction of the country that has entered into the largest number of programs, among the community of nations. This establishes a point, “IMF will never allow Pakistan to commit default. This has become all the more necessary after Pakistan has attained the status of ‘an atomic power’.

I am inclined to accept one of the conspiracy theories of my mentor, Masoom Shah Sindhi. He says, “IMF will never allow Pakistan to commit default, but it will also never allow Pakistan to stand on its feet firmly.” He also says, “Historically Pakistan has remained ‘Frontline Alley’ of United States during ‘Cold War Era’ as well as ‘Proxy Wars in Afghanistan’. On top of all the super power will not allow Pakistan to become a darling of Russia or China. The best tool to keep Pakistan under the ‘US Hegemony’ is to make Pakistan follow the ‘IMF Dictate’.”

I have to accept his point of view and I am also sure that you will also join me once you read my narrative. “Pakistan has lived under 22 IMF programs and the lender of last resort still talks about introducing more structural adjustment programs. This proves two points: 1) the programs introduced in the past were faulty or 2) these programs were never aimed at making Pakistan a self-sustained entity.”

Many Pakistanis may be ready to accept the ‘vested’ interest of IMF, but do have a right to raise finger at the integrity of policy planners. Ironically, the policy planners have been following IMF dictate blindly and failing in coming up with ‘home grown’ plan. The beauty is that the politicians continue ‘mudslinging’ despite having remained part of different governments under different political parties.

Enough is enough, the time has come that people of Pakistan open their eyes and ears open and watch every move of the incumbent government, headed by Shehbaz Sharif.

Time has also come that the people of Pakistan ‘dump’ the political parties and politicians who have proven to be ‘vultures’ only. They have done little for the country, except serving ‘their vested interests’.  

 

Prime Minister of Pakistan, Shehbaz Sharif must bid farewell to his idiosyncrasy

Pakistan’s Prime Minister, Shehbaz Sharif is stuck between a rock and a hard place. He has to make certain decisions at his own, because the cabinet has not been put in place. 

Considering his leeway he is likely to make some populist decisions which could further widen the already wide breach between the Government of Pakistan (GoP) and the lender of last resort, International Monetary Fund (IMF).

Since revision of petroleum prices was due on April 15, 2022, Oil and Gas regulatory Authority (OGRA) had recommended a substantial increase in the prices of petroleum products for recovering the full import cost and exchange rate losses from consumers.

According to the estimates of the regulator, the GoP was required to raise petrol prices by Rs21.30 a litre and diesel by above Rs83 a litre in order to recover the full costs. In case it also wants to recover the sales tax and the petroleum development levy on these products, Ogra has proposed a hike of Rs53.30 in petrol and up to Rs120 in diesel prices.

Who would intentionally opt to step on this landmine that PML-N leader Miftah Ismail referred to in his press conference earlier this week? Certainly not a new coalition that, though faced with an enormous economic crisis, has to contend with a formidable political foe. The big question now is: for how long can Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif delay defusing the landmine, which his predecessor left for him, by freezing petroleum and electricity rates for four months?

He can’t afford to wait for too long, and would need to start deactivating it, even if gradually — unless he wants to allow a bloating budget deficit to spiral out of control by the end of the current financial year.

Thus, the decision to not hike petroleum prices at all is an ill-advised one.

Pakistan is facing a dire economic crisis and populist policies made under political pressure are certainly not going to help anyone in the long run — least of all the people benefiting from them.

At the end of the day, the beneficiaries always end up paying back such subsidies in a harder way through more indirect levies or higher taxes and heavy cuts in public sector spending on essential services, such as education, water supply and healthcare.

The gravity of the looming economic crisis demands that the new government take prudent, forward-looking policy decisions to put the country back on the trajectory of sustainable growth, even it wants to tread cautiously. However, the Shehbaz Sharif government does not have the option of letting things remain as they are or keep delaying tough decisions. If Sharif continues with populist policies for fear of a backlash from the opposition PTI, he would leave the economy in far more dire straits than he inherited.

Can Europe afford ban on Russian Coal?

The world was already struggling to combat a global energy supply squeeze well before the Russian invasion of Ukraine. 

As world powers seek to condemn the Kremlin’s actions in Ukraine by crippling the Russian economy, it’s becoming increasingly clear that energy sanctions will be a necessary part of any meaningful global response.

Those doing the sanctioning are also going to feel an economic backlash as the exit of Russian oil, coal, and gas from the global energy supply will leave many European and Asian countries scrambling for new sources of fuel. 

In fact, the threat posed to Europe’s energy security by sanctions on Russia have left European leaders  gridlocked and struggling to agree on how, what, and how much to boycott.

Unable to come to an accord around Russian oil and gas, which provide nearly half of Europe's energy imports, the European Union has agreed to start with a Russian coal ban, slated to begin in August 2022.

While this may seem like a weak and belated effort when compared with the magnitude and urgency of the atrocities unfolding in Ukraine, this relatively small step will leave the continent scrambling to find 40 million tons of replacement coal. 

Thanks to the lingering effects of the novel coronavirus pandemic, a global energy supply squeeze has led many of the world’s countries back to coal as oil and gas prices skyrocket.

This means weaning the world off of Russian coal imports will be an even bigger challenge for European and Asian countries that have ratcheted up their coal consumption in recent months.

In 2021 alone, European imports of Russian coal increased by 22.4%. Coal prices are already near a record high, and the instatement of the European boycott in August will drive them even higher.

The coal ban will have a much greater impact on Russia than it will on the European Union. “It’s bad news for Putin, but won’t devastate the EU,” Fortune recently reported.

For one thing, European buyers have already begun their shift away from Russian coal, and the August deadline, which Germany pushed for, will ease the burden of finding new sources of coal in a hurry. 

The European Union is far from the only economic bloc that will be scrambling to find new sources of coal. Many Asian nations, too, will be looking for non-Russian imports.

Notably, Japan recently announced that it, too, will ban Russian coal imports in a surprise policy shift that was a reversal of the nation’s previous refusal to extend its embargo to the Russian energy imports that Japan heavily relies upon.

“Russia’s cruel and inhumane actions are coming to light one after another all over Ukraine,” Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida told reporters on Friday. “We will ban imports of Russian coal.”

Some of the world’s biggest coal consumers will be competing in an already tight market for new coal supplies. Top global coal exporters Australia and Indonesia have already hit their production limits, and South Africa, another major coal producer, is facing logistical problems in their own coal supply chains.

According to Fortune, the European Union will likely be looking to the United States and Colombia for coal imports come August, and Germany, Poland, and the Czech Republic will be ramping up their domestic production levels.

China, too, will be massively increasing its production levels. While Beijing will not be exporting domestically produced coal, the production increase will lessen demand for international imports, thereby freeing up some supply on the global marketplace for other nations scrambling to keep the lights on without cutting a check to the Kremlin.

 

Afghans condemn attack on Iranian missions

A large number of Afghan citizens participated in a gathering in Kabul to show their vigilance against the hypocrisy of the enemies of the Iranian and Afghan nations. The rally in the Afghan capital held to condemn the attack on Iranian diplomatic facilities ended with the reading of a joint statement.

The final statement, titled “No to seditionists”.

This gathering means raising the voice of saying no to the enemies and the hypocrites as well as the beautiful whisper of solidarity between the brotherly nation of Iran and Afghanistan. We call on the two governments of Iran and Afghanistan to prevent a division of the two nations by the enemies through sound management and to prevent the destructive moves of the enemies.

Today, we will shout for the unity of the two heroic and brave nations many times, so that there will be a loud call against the enemy's conspiracies and a voice for empathy, friendship and convergence of the two nations.

If a number of ill-intentioned people threw stones at the door of the Iranian consulate in Herat on Monday, today, on behalf of the Afghan people, we will open the door of the Iranian embassy in Kabul as a sign of brotherhood and friendship.

The people of Afghanistan and Iran must say no to the conspiracies of the enemy with full vigilance and with empathy and brotherhood, punching the slaves of the hypocrites.”

At the end of the gathering, the participants, representing the people of Afghanistan, placed flowers on the doors of the Iranian embassy in Kabul.

On Monday, protesters in Herat broke the windows and CCTV cameras of the Iranian consulate. They also set tires on fire in front of the consulate’s building. 

On Tuesday, the Director General of South Asia at the Iranian Foreign Ministry summoned the charge d'affaires of the Afghan embassy in Tehran to strongly protest against the attacks on the Iranian embassy in Kabul and the consulate in Herat.

Recalling the responsibility of governments in ensuring the security of diplomatic missions, the diplomat called for legal action against the attackers on the Iranian missions in Afghanistan.

The Director General also informed the Afghan chargé d'affaires that the consular sections of the missions of Iran in Afghanistan have ceased their activities until further notice in order to get the necessary assurances from the Afghan Foreign Ministry about the full security of the diplomatic offices.

In this regard, Na’eem al-Haq Haqqani, Head of the Taliban Government's Information and Culture Department, called the gathering and attacks of an unidentified group in front of the Iranian consulate in Herat “an arbitrary act”.

He wrote on his Twitter account, “A number of people had protested arbitrarily in front of the Iranian consulate, and the demonstrators immediately were dispersed with the intervention of the security forces of the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan (Taliban). After the Taliban took action, the situation was brought completely under control, and since this move (attack) was controlled very quickly, nothing special happened.”

Foreign Ministry spokesman Saeed Khatibzadeh announced on Tuesday that Iran’s embassy in Kabul and its consulates in other cities in Afghanistan are open and are continuing their activities.

“Yet, it is expected Afghanistan’s interim governing body to responsibly provide the full security of diplomats and diplomatic buildings of the Islamic Republic of Iran in Afghanistan,” Khatibzadeh told reporters.

Iran on Tuesday summoned Afghan envoy in Tehran over attacks the previous day on Iranian diplomatic missions in the neighboring country, state media in Iran reported.

According to the reports, Iran’s Foreign Ministry summoned the Afghan chargé d’affaires in protest over Monday’s attacks on the Iranian Embassy in Kabul and the Iranian Consulate in Herat, where protests had turned aggressive. In Herat, angry Afghan protesters pelted the consulate with rocks.

The ministry demanded that Afghanistan’s new Taliban rulers provide the missions with full security and said they stopped working until further notice. On Monday, ministry spokesman Saeed Khatibzadeh said more needed to be done by the Taliban to ensure security to Iranian missions.

In recent weeks, unverified videos purporting to show Afghan refugees being tortured in Iran have been published on social media, angering many Afghans. Iran has denied the accusations.

Iran hosts millions of Afghan refugees. Last week, Iranian Foreign Minister Hossein Amirabdollahian said the number of Afghans in Iran has jumped to 5 million, from nearly 4 million before the Taliban took power last August

 

 

 

 

How does an Indian analyst see Imran Khan ouster?

“Imran Khan’s shortened tenure and the crisis his ousting offers a sharp reminder of the tenuousness of its democratic institutions in face of the mightily powerful political force wielded by the military,” Mahima Duggal tells the Tehran Times.

Following is the text of the interview

Pakistan's Prime Minister Imran Khan has been ousted from power after losing a no-confidence vote in his leadership. What are the main reasons for such a decision?

The main reason behind Prime Minister Imran Khan’s ousting from the leadership of Pakistan is the escalating tensions between Khan and the top-level military leaders. Reports of frictions between the political and military establishments of Pakistan caused intense turmoil and fuelled further panic and tension in the country in the weeks prior to Khan’s no-confidence vote. In fact, recent reports suggest that alongside deploying his allies to filibuster the no-confidence vote and call the opposition traitors for going against the Prime Minister, Khan also sought to dismiss Pakistan’s army chief, General Qamar Javed Bajwa, a highly influential and powerful figure in Pakistani politics. Although, his efforts to sack Gen. Bajwa were blocked by a pre-emptive petition to the high court, this botched attempt only went to show the extent to which ties between Khan and the military had soured, especially considering the fact that in 2018, when Imran Khan assumed leadership, it was with the help of the army and intelligence establishments of the country. Ultimately, following a highly tense situation – even by the measure of Pakistan’s turbulent political history – wherein he fiercely fought to retain leadership, Khan lost a no-confidence vote in his leadership.

Imran Khan claims that Washington was behind a conspiracy to remove him from power. To what extent this allegation is true?

As of now, there is little evidence to suggest that the effort to remove him from power is anyway a result of a US-led conspiracy, despite strong allegations by Prime Minister Khan alleging this. The assertions first emerged at a rally in Islamabad on March 27, when Khan stated that he held a letter containing a threat by the US directed toward his government. Thereafter, he specifically pointed to Donald Lu, US Assistant Secretary of State for South and Central Asian Affairs, as being a part of this alleged conspiracy. The various (and vague) factors mentioned as reasons for US supposed action range from refusal to allow a US base on Pakistani soil to maintaining neutrality in the Russia-Ukraine conflict – but no confirmation or verification has been provided, with Khan relying on rumors to spur support for his leadership. In other words, his intention was to tap into the simmering anti-American sentiments prevalent in the nation, whose people frequently view the US as unfairly scapegoating Pakistan in its post 9/11 war on terror. Members of his political party, Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI), have supported Khan’s stance – with PTI member and Deputy Speaker Qasim Suri even attempting to block the initial motion for a no-confidence vote earlier in April by claiming that the alleged letter showed interference by foreign forces. 

Khan could very well succeed in pushing for an earlier ballot that allows him to capitalize on the public support he has gathered and reattain office. Yet, the US has bluntly and categorically and repeatedly rejected such assertions of a conspiracy to overthrow Khan’s government, saying there was “absolutely no truth” to them. While it is certainly possible that Khan’s foreign policy of pursuing a closer partnership with China and recent actions like his visit to the Kremlin on February 24 – just as the Ukraine invasion began – upset Washington, there is little real evidence to credibly suggest that the US instigated the no-trust vote in Khan’s leadership. By all accounts, Imran Khan’s ousting is more a result of cracks between his administration and the country’s military establishment, and one reason for these gaps could be Khan’s pivot away from the U.S.

Apparently the Pakistani army supports close ties with America rather than Russia. Given the army’s long role in Pakistani politics, do you see any attempt by the army to remove Imran Khan?

Interestingly enough, Pakistani Army Chief, Gen. Bajwa, has given several statements in support of expanded relations with the US – in addition to those with China – by building on their “long and excellent” history of strategic ties and America’s status as Pakistan’s largest export market. In the same vein, a day before the no-confidence vote, Gen. Bajwa also asserted that the Ukraine invasion was a “huge tragedy” that must be “stopped immediately”. This came in stark contrast to statements by Khan which depicted neutrality and his efforts to carefully avoid siding with either camp. Khan’s policy came as part of the tone his government had adopted over the past four years that saw Pakistan move closer toward China and further away from the US For many, Pakistan’s guarded stance was unexpected considering it shared considerably strong trade ties with Ukraine and has only looked towards a new improved era of bilateral ties with Russia since 2014. However, in view of regional security and a focus on Afghanistan, building better relations with Russia as well as China, both key players in Afghanistan, has become not only prudent but also critical for Islamabad. Although this clash of positions may have been a spark prompting the Pakistani military establishment to move to remove Khan from office, it was only a symptom of a steadily heightening rift between the political and military institutions.

What will be the future of government in Pakistan after Imran Khan? 

Shehbaz Sharif, leader of the Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N) and the rainbow coalition of opposition parties, was elected prime minister two days after Imran Khan’s ouster, via a parliamentary vote that was widely boycotted by over 100 lawmakers of PTI. Notably, Sharif was the only contender for the post after PTI, and its candidate Shah Mahmood Qureshi, the former foreign minister of Pakistan, staged a protest and walked away from the vote altogether. Sharif was a three-time chief minister of the Pakistan Punjab province and is renowned for his positive administration style. As chief minister, he worked closely with Beijing to attract and implement developmental projects funded by China. He also enjoys good relations with the Pakistani military, which is likely to continue at least in the immediate future, as he looks to appease the traditionally powerful army chief and top military leaders so as to cement his political position. Accordingly, we will likely see the Pakistani military be a strong driver of the country’s foreign and security policies. Notably, after the walkout by PTI parliamentarians, Sharif is faced with a considerably smaller 174-seat assembly which comprises primarily of his supporters; this number exceeds the simple majority required to pass laws, which will make it considerably easier for Sharif to speedily implement any regulations, unchecked by an opposition that is critical to the democratic process.

At the same time, it is worth noting that through his show of strength in the days before the no-confidence motion, Imran Khan has managed to garner incredible support from the nation’s public, especially youth voters who resonated with Khan’s conspiracy theory narrative and blamed the US for his removal from office. On April 10, footage showed hundreds of thousands of citizens gathered in protest of the no-confidence vote, calling any new administration a forcefully “imposed” government. Although the Pakistan general elections are only due at the end of 2023, Khan could very well succeed in pushing for an earlier ballot that allows him to capitalize on the public support he has gathered and reattain office – although any such endeavour would be highly complicated without the support of the country’s military.

How do you think about the fate of Pakistani prime ministers in Pakistan’s history? 

Pakistan’s politics has long been dominated by a handful of powerful, influential, wealthy, and well-established political dynasties, especially the Sharif and Bhutto factions – a trend that Imran Khan vowed to break when he was elected in 2018. At the time, he had everything in his corner; not only was he a populist leader, enjoying fame as a cricket star that had hailed him a national hero, but had also proven to be a charismatic political leader with promises to bring change to forge a new Pakistan. Most importantly perhaps, he also enjoyed the favor of the support of the all-influential Pakistani military. No prime minister in the history of Pakistan has ever been able to complete their full term of five years in office; but it seemed that with his rapport with the army and public, Khan could be the first to do so, thereby ushering in a new era. Yet, post the pandemic, which left the Pakistani economy in tatters with slow growth and double-digit inflations, Khan was ousted with still another year to go.

Imran Khan’s shortened tenure and the crisis of his ousting offers a sharp reminder of the tenuousness of its democratic institutions in face of the mightily powerful political force wielded by the military. It is an indication, and a confirmation, of how deeply compromised the country’s politics is while powerful military leaders, like the army chief, are ultimately in control. It was the military that eased the way for Imran Khan in 2018, reportedly by tactics of gross coercion and intimidation of PTI’s opposition; now, after Khan moved away from the priorities set forth by the military to pursue closer ties with China and challenged the military leadership over certain top-level appointments, it is the military that holds the reins and has helped choreograph his ouster. The Pakistani military’s role in the fall of the country’s political administration is not unprecedented but has frequently occurred in history whenever a sitting prime minister lost the favor of the military. What is unique with Khan’s case is perhaps the use of constitutional mechanisms to enable a change of guard rather than outright coups. It remains to be seen whether the chaos caused by the military’s interference and Khan’s blatant and malicious violation of constitutional procedures for personal political gains will result in lasting chaos and deep damage to the country’s democracy.

Time to resolve economic crises facing Pakistan

Dawn newspaper in its Editorial has termed Pakistan’s current economic situation dire. The new coalition government has inherited an economy encumbered with rising price, widening fiscal and current account deficits and diminishing foreign currency reserves. 

The country also faces a volatile political environment.

Former Finance Minister, Shaukat Tarin’s contention that the PTI has left the economy in a better shape than it had inherited in 2018 may not be rejected, but the challenge of turning it around, or at least providing some relief to inflation-stricken citizens anytime soon, is a formidable task for the new set-up.

It has rightly highlighted that exaggerating the facts will not help either. The estimates of fiscal and current account deficits given by Miftah Ismail at his Tuesday presser are on the higher side. But Pakistanis have seen this pattern before: every new government needlessly amplifies the economic crisis to discredit its predecessors.

Dawn has rejected Miftah’s the claim and said, the current account deficit is growing but is unlikely to reach US$20 billion mark.

The fiscal deficit is burgeoning, and may cross the previous government’s estimates of slightly over 6% of GDP. Yet it is an exaggeration to say it would increase to 10% by the close of the current fiscal year.

Foreign exchange reserves are down, yet State Bank of Pakistan says, country’s external financing needs for the present fiscal year are fully met from identified sources.

There is no denying to the facts that the economy is in deep trouble, and indeed in a worse state than what the PTI had inherited.

The situation has been worsened by the IMF decision to delay the US$ one billion tranche due to the third tax amnesty given by the previous government to the wealthy, as well as political uncertainty in the country.

China is taking its time to roll over its debt of nearly US$2.5 billion as it waits for the political dust to settle.

Once the IMF is back as expected, since Miftah promises to honour Islamabad’s commitments to the lender, and China rolls over its loan, the reserves are likely to start rising.

The question is do the new rulers have the acumen to fix the two major structural problems for reviving the economy.

That requires massive growth in tax collection, by expanding taxpayers’ base and eliminating exemptions to the powerful, as well as the privatization of state enterprises to reduce the gap between income and expenditure.

Further, governance and policy reforms are needed to substantially raise productivity for boosting exports and paying import bills.

The coalition may not have much time to undertake all these fiscal and productivity reforms, but it can initiate changes to restructure the economy for a sustainable turnaround in the longer term.

It is hoped that the incumbent government will neither resort to populist moves ahead of the elections nor put additional burden on the masses.