PAKISTAN STEEL — FAST FORGING AHEAD: A CLARIFICATION

The contents of the article “Pakistan Steel — Beginnings of a turmoil” (Defence Journal April, 2002) by M. Zafar reflect a crass bias against the management of Pakistan Steel. Overwhelmed by personal grudges,  everything to him at Pakistan Steel  appears to be upside down. He finds the management neither having any direction, nor plan for something he has absurdly phrased as  “strategic” turn-around. He has given this statement about a management which, with a clear objective of making Pakistan Steel economically  viable, has carried out a well-planned restructuring  of the organization, achieving a real turn-around in the last financial year, after many years of persistent losses in billions. Pakistan Steel yielded a profit of Rs. 586 billion after paying Rs. 2.45 billion as an instalment of the loan along with mark-up to the banks (for the first time in the history of Pakistan Steel) besides financing of voluntary retirement of about 7,000 regular employees  from within its own recourses.

As a matter of fact, Mr. M. Zafar  is a retired major who had been an employee of Pakistan Steel. He was dismissed from service on 31-08-1995 on charges of serious irregularities of financial and administrative nature detected by Audit Department  in the affairs of  Food Shop and Law Department, which were in his charge. His services were dismissed after following due process of law and the entire disciplinary process laid down under the service rules. However, later on purely on humanitarian and compassionate grounds his dismissal was converted into retirement of superannuation, just to allow him to be  benefited from retiring service benefits. Major (Retd) M. Zafar also gave an undertaking to the management that on conversion of his dismissal into retirement, he will not claim any back benefits or emoluments for the period from his dismissal to retirement  but he did not honour the undertaking and filed petition in the court of law  for back benefits. The matter is still subjudice. However, it appears that Major (Retd) M. Zafar is trying to blackmail the management of Pakistan Steel through the columns of EBR and making Daily Dawn a party in the matter.                                           

The management at Pakistan Steel is very much aware of the challenges it shall have to face to compete in the free market. Alleging that majority of the trained craftsmen having  been removed, the mention of the daily wage workers with reference to the incident of 6th June, 2001 has been made slyly in a manner as if they are being deployed in place of trained manpower. It may suffice to say in this regard that deployment of daily wage workers for manual help at the Bloom Casting Machine has been in practice from the very beginning, that is when the manpower was 24,000 and including the period  when Maj (Retd) M. Zafar  was on the row of  Pakistan Steel. Secondly, had the majority of trained  manpower  been removed how could better production  results, now on record, as compared  to the past, could be obtained.

Pakistan Steel is not  seeking any tariff protection as alleged in the article.  What is being sought is the protection against the import of secondaries which are being  imported under the guise  of prime quality material. These secondaries described as 2nd choice, 3rd choice quality previously are now available  upto  6th choice and 7th choice. What a paradoxical  approach it is that on one hand in the name of promotion of local industry lowering of duty in the steel products is being advocated under the  false impression that Pakistan Steel is not in a position to provide quality material at competitive  prices, whereas on the other hand junk steel  is being imported in the name of “prime quality”  material to damage the sales of Pakistan Steel. How can the secondaries help in high quality production of steel products in the country to make them competitive in the international market, can be best  answered  by the writer. Apart from this if seeking tariff protection can be termed as supporting inefficiencies what would one say about the 30   percent duty imposed by USA on the import  of steel products under sections 201/203 of US trade law  (http:\\www.steel.org.news) and the  proposed retaliatory   action by the European Union countries whereas in  Pakistan  some  of the steel products are  being  imported against 20 percent (in case of billets) and 10 percent duty (in case of sheets)

By the yardstick of the writer the  Indian Steel Industry (annual capacity 22 million tons) which not only   enjoys the benefits of economy of scales but also of cheaper labour, may appear to be extremely inefficient  as it has been enjoying a tariff protection of upto 63 percent, although India is a member of W.T.O, too, inspite of all these arrangements  the Steel Authority of India suffered a loss of Rs. 7286.6 million in the last financial  year ending March  2001  and the losses suffered for nine months of the current financial year  i.e. upto December, 2001 amounted to Rs12898.2 million.(http:sail.co.in/financial/uafresults.htm).

When viewed in this backdrop how  would one judge Pakistan Steel with a meagre capacity of 1.1 million  tonne coming into profit under the present management for whom duty protection had been brought down from 70% (in 1993-94) to 35 percent and has been further brought down upto 10 percent as mentioned above.

How by ill-information or disinformation in the  public opinion may be misguided, the mention in the article of delay in capital repairs at Pakistan Steel is an example in this regard. The factual position  is that only the  capital repairs or Blast furnace No.2 and along with it that of the oxygen  plant, and some other units, have been deferred / delayed due to  post-11th September, 2001 situation because of which the Russian Contractors who were awarded the contract for repairs were  not in a position to come to Pakistan  to carry out their job as per schedule. However, the repair works that had to be carried out on the part of the engineers of Pakistan Steel have been carried out very efficiently according to schedule, for which they need to be appreciated. The repairs of Blast Furnace No. 2 and other concerned units are about to begin now that the situation is returning to normal.

The writer has blamed others for technical ineptitude and the incompetence, as if he himself has a better technical knowledge than the others at Pakistan Steel. It is a perfect case of  “a pot calling a kettle black”. Mr. M. Zafar is advised to evaluate his own competence and integrity before writing on the affairs of Pakistan Steel. How such a person who has a chequered history of  service at Pakistan Steel  and a personal axe to grind with the management of  the organization can be expected to write fairly about Pakistan Steel affairs. Army has been a  noble profession  through the ages in all  societies of the world. If a man like Maj. (Retd) M. Zafar is no longer proud of his rank and military identity, which he avoids to mention with his name while writing for the reasons best known to him, there is hardly any honourable deed which can be expected of him.

M. Anwer Shahid Khan

Manager-Pakistan Steel

 

M.Zafar

125 Defence Housing Scheme II

Malir Cantt Karachi 75070

Telephone: 92-21-4900021

Dated May 10, 2002

My dear Colonel Nusrat,

I have just read your e-mail (5.30 am May 10, 2002). I do not have clarification of Pakistan Steel before me nor do I want to wait for it because your reference to my service in Pakistan Steel needs immediateclarification. I hope you will be kind enough to publish this.

I joined Pakistan Steel in March 1988 and served with dedication and distinction. In view of my performance I was promoted to the next higher rank after one year of service — a testimony to my competence and character. My contribution to the organisation during the period of its turn-around in 1992-94 was outstanding and has been widely acknowledged. Anyone can directly ask Lieutenant General Sabeeh Qamar Uz Zaman the then Chairman of Pakistan Steel to whom I was reporting directly for a comment on my service during the period.

I was concurrently holding three departments — Law, Industrial Relations and Central Food Shop and in addition was assigned many complicated cases of critical importance to Pakistan Steel. My performance and successes during that historic period gave me a high profile that aroused bitter jealousies among my colleagues.

Mr. Sajjad Hussain took over on 7th August 1994 to act less as a Chairman and more as a conduit for the loot. Within minutes of taking over he made me an OSD because he and those in cahoots with him considered me to be a threat. To justify the illegal and uncalled for action a bogus and concocted charge sheet was framed after two months. I can mail you a copy so that you see for yourself if there is anything in that which is remotely connected with an irregularity. Anyway the document was immediately replied refuting each and every statement contained therein.Then after another two months an inquiry committee was appointed. The committee acting in accordance with the brief given to it gave its findings and Mr.Sajjad Hussain thereupon without complying with any of the mandatory legal requirements dismissed me from service.

I appealed against the illegal and unjust dismissal to all succeeding authorities. After three years of hectic and frustrating efforts I was informed that the then Chairman Mr. Abu Shamim Ariff after a thorough review converted dismissal into normal retirement on superannuation. Nowwhat remains of the indictment?

I accepted the decision and applied for payment of dues. The agonizingly slow process for clearance of dues took nine months. Unfortunately by then Mr. Abu Shamim Ariff had been posted out and the attitude of PS authorities changed completely. My dues still remain unpaid and the case is before the Federal Services Tribunal.

I have been writing on defence, diplomatic, political and economic affairs of the country for the last five years for your esteemed publications and indeed for many other national and international papers. The accuracy and the integrity of the contents has never been challenged.

My articles on Pakistan Steel have regularly appeared in the Dawn and the News. I challenge anybody to show a single reference to myself. The article “Beginning of a Turmoil” was the first ever on Steel Mills sent to DJ because two industrial actions within the span of a few weeks at Pakistan Steel an industrial unit of strategic importance were naturally disturbing and needed to be brought under the focus of strategic analysts. The underlying cause of this unrest lies in the insecurity that the workers have felt after the death of nine workers in June last year due to use of substandard additives at the Steel Making Plant. Chairman Pakistan Steel failed to exercise due discretion when he directly authorized the use of that substandard material against rules.

Now what has that got to do with me or what happened to me eight years ago?

Kindest regards

Yours sincerely,

Zafar

Dear Ikram Sehgal

Kindly allow me the courtesy of your columns to convey the following to my Indian brethren.  A  news analyst on Sahara TV on May 26th opined that the time for the testing of the short and long range missiles capable of delivering nukes by Pakistan was most inappropriate in view of the mounting tensions on the borders. I would respectfully ask the gentleman as to who created the tension in the first instance? Who ordered the troops to the borders? Who moved, only the next day, five naval ships from the Indian eastern waters to the Arabian Sea? Unfortunately, Indian leadership has not relented the pressure even for a day ever since December 13, after an attack on the outside of the Indian Parliament building and have been aggravating the situation by their one hostile act followed by another against Pakistan. Suspension of  Friendship Bus Service, Samjotha Express train, banning of PIA over flights,  recalling Indian High Commissioner, expelling Pak High Commissioner only about a week ago, threatening to revoke Indus Basin Water Treaty. So much so, that the other day no less a person than Prime Minister A B Vajpai himself goaded the troops in occupied Kashmir to prepare for the Final Battle.  He sent the ominous cryptic signals, saying so,  across the border in particular and to the entire world in general about his designs. This drama is going on for more than five months now.

On the other hand, throughout this period the Pakistani leadership and the people have shown exemplary restraint and have been pleading for negotiations across the table. Most probably, General Musharraf’s such a stance was misconstrued by the Indian leadership to be a sign of weakness. The more ‘talks’ he asked for the more ‘tanks’ he was threatened with.  Such blatant belligerency could not be swallowed any more by the Pakistanis and many a ripple was forming into an under current against the placating attitude of the General in the country. Unfortunately, Ghauris and Ghaznavis had to leave their launching pads to send the message across.

Mr. Vajpai was not ‘impressed’ by the missiles!  How I wish,  his such a statement was not for the consumption of the innocent Indian masses. In the name of humanity,  I would urge Mr. Vajpai to be ‘impressed’, for, if he is not, then he is not aware of the magnitude of the holocaust that the impending catastrophe that can cast over the teeming millions of the South Asia. I would ask both Pakistan and Indian leaders to please apprise their nations of the immense sufferings that such missiles armed with nukes can cause to them.  I am sure, if the masses can gauge the real magnitude of the disaster awaiting them, they will prevail upon their leaders to come to their senses and start talking immediately rather than threaten each other with the Agnis, Trishols, Ghauris and Ghaznavis.

Truly yours

 

Col. Riaz Jafri (Retd)

30, Westridge-1

Rawalpindi 46000

PAKISTAN

Tel (92)(51)546 3344

E.Mail: jafri@rifiela.com

To,

The Editor

Defence Journal

Karachi.

Please publish the following in your esteemed publication.

Two letters, one from Brig (Retd) Kamal khan and the other from Lt/Col Mohammad Anwar, have appeared in Defence Journal of January 2002. Both the scribes have tried to make a point that Mr A.H. Amin had unjustly ignored the marvellous role played by the commander 24 Brigade and the Infantry in the battle of  Chawinda. Most of their objections and queries have been adequately dealt with by Mr A. H. Amin. However, I would like to comment upon the points on which both the officers have taken exception.

Firstly, they feel that the brave conduct of general (late) Abdul Ali Malik as brigade commander at Chawinda has been ignored and not highlighted by A. H. Amin. According to them he was the best among Brigadiers on both sides. My question is that which scale or criterion, the two officers have applied to assess the bravery and competence of the Brigade commander. Since they have not taken part in the battle, they have been carried away by hearsay and unrealistic image of the Brigadier built in the army through systematic publicity campaign  by vested interests.

Personally I have nothing against Gen Ali but fiction should not be allowed to overtake facts. Concerned people did not sincerely assess performance of  our army in 1965 war. It was not even openly discussed uptill 1978. It was in early 1979 that a controversy arose between late Mr Altaf Gohar and Air Marshal Noor Khan over the performance of our Armed Forces in 1965. Here was an opportunity for me to give vent to  my feelings  which remained suppressed for 15 years. The Dawn of 13 April 1979 carries my letter, a part of which I shall reproduce which is an explanation as to why nobody spoke adversely about Brig Ali and his Brigade at Chawinda for 36 years. Quote, as a people we cannot stand criticism. We have no courage to see the hard facts with open eye. Any criticism even constructive, is most likely to be branded as defeatism, pessimism and even anti-state. And all those who pass such a verdict fully know that criticism is key to progress.

War is an intricate affair where it is impossible to find the factual position of all the events which come up on battlefield. Military historians (not in Pakistan) do make an effort to record the events objectively. In case of Pakistan no such effort has ever been made. And there is a reason behind this. Wars in Pakistan are short and hence very few officers and men get involved in actual combat during this short period. The major part of the army either remains on wheels or in rear areas. After ceasefire we find that many of those who had actually taken part in combat are killed in action, others are sacked and those who survived are few in number. Now if someone out of survivals makes an effort to record the events on battlefield objectively, he will be discouraged and even opposed by those who never faced the enemy. Since such people are in great majority they carry the day. Eventually non-combatants become judges on soldiers. Unquote.

Secondly, the fact that no one ever commented adversely, in M Ds and presentations, about the performance of officers and commander 24 Brigade is not a certificate that their conduct was above board. I wish I could participate in the gatherings being referred to by the two officers. Nevertheless, I shall quote the battle study arranged by 6 Armoured division on 8th Sept 1967 in which Brig Ali was invited to brief the officers of the division about the battle. The place was 40r near Gadgor, where from Chobara, Mstpur, Monrowali, Sabzpir and Marajkee were clearly visible. The Brig explained the operations of 8th and as he started narration of the events of 9 Sept I noticed it was contrary to the facts as I saw them on the battlefield. I got up to contradict the Brig but I was not allowed to speak. It was also the case with the operations of 10 Sept. He spoke about an attack on Manrowali from 40r in which my troop of tanks was  used. It was a total fiasco, which the Brig was depicting as remarkable action. I tried to intervene but again I was not allowed. I can also quote here my article, entitled ”The Heroes Of Chawinda” published in’ The News’. On May, 5, 1992, which was a rejoinder to Mr Agha Baber and Farook Adam for their articles published ealier in the same newspaper. That will become a long affair.

At the end, I may mention that for 17 days my tank had been on the front line and I never observed the Brig  visiting the troops in front line. Passing orders sitting in bunker is not desirable when mobile forces are involved in battle.

Major (Retd) Shamshad

Dear editor, Defence Journal:

It is time the leadership of India and Pakistan think and talk outside the box about Kashmir and its people!

Thank you for educating your readers and viewers about “The most dangerous place in the world.” We are rightfully warned that there is an immediate, serious, and substantial threat of major escalation in the Kashmir Conflict that will bring catastrophe over one billion people in the region. There is need to take an active diplomatic initiative to address the Kashmir people’s issue.

As Kashmir-born naturalized American citizen, having spent time between the two countries {My current country extraordinarily free [29 years] and old country under operation [29 years]}.

The people of Kashmir hold the crucial key and role in current situation. It is all right that we focus on the government’s of India and Pakistan. It is equally important that we need to draw attention to the plight and aspirations of the people of Jammu & Kashmir.

We need to recognize the rightful and necessary role the people of Kashmir must play in finding a peaceful solution to the Kashmir Conflict, let alone the right of the people of Kashmir to shape their own destiny and the fulfilment of the people’s aspiration for freedom, peace, and justice along with end of military occupation and oppression.

We must consider families, friends, faiths, funds, fun, and future in this human endure with fairness and freedom and without fear or favour.

“It is necessary for the triumph of the evil that concerned people do nothing”.

Thank you in advance.

Yours evergreen,

Colonel A. M. Khajawall, MD. ABFM, ABDA

Colonel USAR/MC, 113th. Medical Company

[Combat Stress Control]

First Secretary: Kashmir American Mission [KAM}

Founder: Kashmiri American Council. [KAC]

Chief Psychiatrist: World Wide Professional Consultants

P.O.BOX 4040

Diamond Bar California, 911765-0040

Cellphone: 1-909-374-1974

Home Phone: 1-909-860-8444 and 1-562-777-7771

Email: khajawall@yahoo.com and kashmirkam@aol.com

Pakistan — A Political Experimental Station

Dear Editor:

Mr. Iqbal Quadir’s article in May issue of DJ was interesting reading.  He has briefly summarized the personalized nature of experiments of different rulers of Pakistan.  I’m pointing to few things in his article for historical correction.  He states that Ghulam Muhammad was talking to US officials ‘behind government’s back’.  This is only partially true.  If government means constituent assembly then surely nothing was discussed in that assembly about relations with US.  If by government we mean the ruling group, then the statement is not correct because most of the senior members of the government were part of this exercise. 

The leadership of Muslim League in the pre-partition times was not sure of Labour party’s full commitment and was in general had a very favourable attitude towards US government.  This impression was further reinforced by a somewhat negative initial attitude of US towards Nehru’s interim government.  John Foster Dulles (He was one of the US government representatives in UN General assembly at that time) in a speech in New York in January 1947 stated that, ‘In India, Soviet Communism exercises a strong influence through interim Hindu government’. 

Muhammad Ali Jinnah himself was convinced that in future, US would be a great supporter of Pakistan.  This was based on a rapidly widening gulf between Soviet Union and US.  Although, he saw US as a potential ally of Pakistan but he was also well aware of the general suspicion of Muslims of India about US.  It is interesting to note that while in 1947 the US general image was very positive (There was not yet any Korea, Vietnam or CIA covert operations in full swing) but general populace’s gut feelings proved correct compared to many sages of that time.  The idea of presenting Pakistan, as bulwark against Soviets to US was not Ghulam Muhammad’s original idea.  Four months before Pakistan came into existence, Jinnah alluded to this.  In May 1947, Jinnah during his meeting with Raymond Hare (Division of Middle Eastern and Indian Affairs) and Thomas Weil (Second Secretary of embassy at Delhi) said that while he realized that US government was open minded regarding Pakistan demand but most Indian Muslims felt Americans were against them.  He also stated that, “Muslim countries would stand together against possible Russian aggression and would look to US for assistance’.  (Secret telegram of Charge in India (Merrell) to the Secretary of State.  May 2, 1947.  Foreign Relation of the United States (FRUS). 1947 . Volume III. The British Commonwealth and Europe.  (Washington: United States Government Printing Office, 1972), p. 154)  When he met Lewis (Consul General at Karachi) on August 9, 1947, he stated that he had already selected an Ambassador for Washington but will wait till Constituent Assembly session on August 15.  However, he added that as he is the one who has already made the decision all else was mere formality.  (FRUS,  p. 163-64)  In early October M. A. H. Ispahani came to Washington as Pakistan’s ambassador.  Around same time, Jinnah sent his special emissary Mir Laik Ali asking for US assistance (there are two accounts in US records.  One early account states that Laiq initially requested $45 million short-term loan and another account states that he asked for a whopping $ 2 billion package which was divided into $700 million for industrial development, $700 million for agriculture and $510 million for military). (FRUS, p. 173 and  ‘Appraisal of US Military, Political and Economic interests in South Asia’.  Records of the Military Advisor to the Office of Near Eastern and African Affairs, Record Group 59, National Archives, Washington: DC. cited in Vankataramani, M. S.  The American Role in Pakistan (Lahore: Vanguard Books, 1984),  p. 16-20)   )  Despite verbal and later official polite rebuffs by US Laik and Ispahani kept sending wrong signals of encouragement to Pakistan thus elevating the hopes of US aid.  Another consequence of this was that increasing number of players in Pakistan’s ruling elite started to interact with American officials for potential personal benefits.  Ghulam Muhammad asked Ispahani to work to arrange a visit to Washington for him.  Ispahani sent a note to acting Secretary of State asking whether US government would be prepared to receive a financial mission from Pakistan to continue discussion about the loan.  (FRUS,  p. 173)  Mr. Iqbal Quadir’s statement that ‘Ghulam Muhammd did not even spare the foreign minister Ch. Zafrullah Khan’ also needs clarification.  The inner power struggle between different individuals was going on but the fact is that Ghulam Muhammad and Zafrullah Khan met with Lewis on December 31, 1947 together.  In this meeting, it was Zafrullah who gave a long lecture to Lewis about the strategic importance of Pakistan, antipathy to Soviets and friendship for US.  Sir Feroz Khan Noon on his visit to Turkey contacted US embassy in Ankara and met counsellor and handed him a confidential document asking for an urgent military aid. 

All the pillars of central government, C-in-C General Ayub Khan, Secretary General Chaudry Muhammad Ali, Foreign Secretary Muhammad Ikramullah and Defence Secretary Sikander Mirza also joined the stream of Pakistani luminaries trying to cultivate US.  In this race, the shrewd Sikander Mirza beat everybody to the finish line not only achieving his personal ambition but also able to get direct lineage when his son married the daughter of US ambassador Hildreth. Why these key decision-makers behaved like that is a whole different area of discussion but readers will find it very interesting if they read the biographic accounts of these gentlemen.  There is nothing wrong with trying to cultivate good relations with any country.  It is the attitude and behaviour of policy makers and methodology adopted for that goal which needs close scrutiny. 

The best gift, which can give to each other, is truth. 

Kind Regards,

Sincerely

Hamid Hussain

Port Jefferson, New York

humza@dnamail.com

From: <JonSrSpeller@aol.com>

To: <defjrnl@pathfinder.com.pk>

Subject: Re: Joint Patrols for LoC

Date: Thursday, June 06, 2002 5:23 AM

Dear Editor-in-Chief,

President of Pakistan Pervez Musharraf was very correct in his statement to CNN that “We refuse to accept the Indian claim of being the accusers as well as the judges. If they are the accusers, let there be somebody else to act as the judge.” Pakistan’s proposal for neutral observers on the LoC is a reasonable one.  What does India have to hide by rejecting it?

Perhaps Pakistan should have conditionally accepted the Indian offer for joint patrols of the LoC. However, the condition should be, in my opinion, that Pakistan should be allowed to utilize the professional military services of mutually friendly countries within its part of a joint patrol command. For example, if the British Government would contribute units of the Royal Gurkha Rifles, who have unquestioned loyalty to their Colonel-in-Chief H.R.H. Prince Charles of Wales, they could provide outside independent neutral “eyes and ears” to determine what India may be trying to hide in Kashmir.

Or would the chauvinistic government of India claim that the Gurkhas are “Muslim extremists” when they are not even Muslims?

It is unbearable that the Sub-Continent should be a flashpoint for the danger of a nuclear holocaust. It is unbearable that the people of the State of Jammu and Kashmir should be occupied 45% by India, 35% by Pakistan, and 20% by China, all three of which possess nuclear weapons, without the Kashmiris ever having had the opportunity to be even a negotiating partner in determining their own fate.

Anyway, I make the suggestion of use of the Royal Gurkha Rifles, who are well-known by all professional soldiers, including by the esteemed professional military of Pakistan and India, for their proficiency in night fighting, as last shown in the Falkland War, as an opportunity for Pakistan to “call the Indian bluff” regarding joint patrols.

With all best wishes,

Respectfully yours,

Semper fidelis

Dr. Jon Speller, Chairman

Anti-Communist International

PO Box 1095

Grand Central Station

New York NY 10163-1095

USA