`
|
` |
|
|
|
 |
 |
   |
future Democratic
alternative security A different
viewpoint A time of
crises analysis Newswatch firstperson
Without
Benazir
In the aftermath of Benazir's death, many questions loom about the lack of security in the country By Razeshta Sethna On New Year's Eve, Karachi
remained bizarrely silent. A ghost-like ambience permeated the city, an Benazir's assassination had unleashed a Pandora's box. Scenes created brought to mind the aftermath of Saddam Hussein's fall, when Baghdad's ministries and museums were looted. Ambulances operated by the Edhi Foundation stood burnt or unable to reach the injured and dying, because they had run out of gas. Here I am not referring to scattered pockets of unrest but mass rioting and looting, which left at least 40 people dead and more than 150 injured in Sindh alone during the three-day mourning period following the PPP chairperson's assassination. Hundreds of bank branches were burnt and 950 vehicles destroyed. Organised criminal gangs operating without restraint along the city's main arteries took advantage of the lack of security, looting families travelling in cars and even raiding homes in Karachi. I chanced to encounter a higher-up in the police department and asked why this kind of civil unrest was permitted without intervention, even if anger at Benazir's assassination was the reason. Where were the police contingents when needed the most to ensure the safety of citizens? Interestingly, he explained that the orders for police intervention, which were necessary when unrest of such magnitude occurs, were not received immediately. They could not act on their own steam was part of his version. Another concerned citizen claimed almost immediately that the unrest was an election-delaying tactic, so that the PPP could not get the sympathy vote in the aftermath of Benazir's assassination. What was obvious, however, was the lack of concentrated police and paramilitary presence in key areas that the looters had already marked out. Karachi, which has seen some of the worst violence over the years, is the capital of Sindh, the traditional stronghold of the Bhutto family. Many people in the province resent the policies of the federal government. Analysts believe that the smaller provinces, in particular Balochistan, have already begun pulling in different directions; and if certain forces are not kept in check, then there may be a serious threat to the country's integrity in the coming days. Benazir's assassination has brought this issue to the forefront. Political analysts believe that the only way to head off further civil unrest is to form a broad-based coalition government. "Pakistan's survival depends on the earliest possible transition to democracy and the formation of an all-party national government," views I A Rehman, director of the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan (HRCP). Following the attack on Benazir, the rumour mill about who did it and why was rife with varied reasons and working overtime. The media played again and again the amateur image of a young, suited man aiming his gun at Benazir from behind, whilst she stood waving through the sunroof of her vehicle. A tallish man, the alleged suicide bomber, whose head and part of face were covered by a white cloth, flanked him. Benazir survived the October 18 attack in Karachi, when 140 party loyalists lost their lives. So, she knew the threat of death was not far off or unreal. She was known to have written countless emails explaining her position in this regard. "I am not worried about Mehsud. I am worried about the threat within the government. People like Mehsud are just pawns. It is the forces behind them that have presided over the rise of extremism and militancy in my country. They feel threatened now that their infrastructure will be rolled back when democracy is restored," Benazir had told The Observer. The Pakistani government, on the other hand, is insisting that its investigation points the finger at Baitullah Mehsud, South Waziristan Agency's most wanted man. Let us hope that there are some results, now that the detectives from Britain's Scotland Yard have also joined the ongoing probe into Benazir's assassination! As rioters, looters and arsonists took advantage of the general anger-venting mechanism countrywide, the general public ached for peace. The moderate voices among them displayed resilience and wanted calm. The psychological damage was worse as Pakistanis feared leaving their homes, whether they lived in suburban or even rural settings. In Karachi, amid reports of rioting and sabotage, stories circulated that the city's water supply had been poisoned and people were afraid to drink it. Grocery stores did not dare pull up their shutters for business; even small shops, restaurants and cafes remained closed during the three-day official mourning period. To add to the general uncertainty, conflicting accounts of how Benazir died continue to circulate -- from bullet wounds or from a suicide blast that followed or from fracturing her skull against her vehicle's sunroof. In these media reports, many are pointing the finger of blame at President Pervez Musharraf, certain key King's Party leaders or the intelligence agencies. Confusion does not reign solely on the streets, but also in the minds of those who continue to question how Benazir was actually killed and why. Those who often talked politics when gathered with friends over tea or even over the phone fear their views will be detrimental to their safety. People are prone to naturally suspect that quarter whose popularity rating has plummeted; but without evidence to prove any allegation, they rather not point fingers at the more powerful, they say. At this juncture, Pakistanis are asking many questions about the stability of their country in the coming days. Suddenly, this past autumn it seemed like the political destinies of Musharraf and Benazir were interlocked. But with one of the key players now assassinated, how will the other survive this loss of partnership? Who will fill the vacuum? Washington's plan for Benazir has not succeeded and the Bush administration lays the blame for her death on al-Qaeda, while it continues to support Musharraf as a key moderate ally in the region. However, there is a growing speculation whether the US support to Musharraf will continue in the coming days. Though Washington reiterates that it will support a democratically elected government and not a one-man show, so far the support has arrived only for Musharraf's policy decisions, including the controversial November 3 imposition of emergency, followed by the ongoing curbs to gag a free media and imprison outspoken lawyers and dissenting judges. Americans claim this agenda is not Musharraf-specific, but one that supports a free and fair election as a basis for a transition to a democratic set-up. But can this argument be read as realistic, when for decades Pakistan's fate and that of its elected representatives has been interlocked with its military machine and its formidable intelligence agencies? Certain observers believe that the political climate, if not controlled, will result in civil unrest and fragmentation, given the varied ethnic groups who have failed for decades to unite for a cause. Only if all politicians unconditionally espouse the national cause for democracy and progress, then the politics of consensus would benefit the whole country. One wonders when and how anti-Musharraf politicians (even if united presently in their grief) will stand together to ensure a moderate, secular government for the people, rather than spend national resources on hounding one another. If past alliances are anything to go by, then the almost-defunct Alliance for the Restoration of Democracy (ARD), which later gave way to the All Parties Democratic Movement (APDM), did not generate consensus politics; it, in fact, led to the politics of boycott and disintegration. For instance, there was a lack of consensus among the component parties of the APDM over boycotting the general elections and the reinstatement of the deposed judges of the superior judiciary. Many concerned citizens blame the authorities for their inaction during the initial spate of violence, especially in Sindh, claiming this could be an election-delaying tactic at best. Political analysts say this delay could further increase polarisation among the provinces. However, the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) states that the printing of ballot papers stopped after Benazir's assassination and the offices of assistant election commissioners were burnt in 11 districts of Sindh. This explanation sounds plausible, say analysts, but in the same breath argue that the King's Party may have wanted to recover some of its declining support. We know that the blame game will continue unabated for a while, until even this story dies down, and another is resurrected: most likely, of post-election rigging. Claims in Benazir's election rigging dossier have now been widely circulated by the PPP's top brass, but dismissed by the government as baseless. "I fear for Pakistan. Its further decay will affect all of its neighbours, Europe and the United States in unpredictable and unpleasant ways. Will it be a death blow? Can Pakistan recover as a state and as a society? It is hard to be optimistic," Stephen Cohen, of The Brookings Institution, wrote after Benazir's assassination. True, Benazir's tragic death has left a cauldron of hot flames waiting to erupt. However, political observers, who realise that Pakistan has endured many tragic events in the past, also know that the country is not as delicate as some cynical friends tend to believe. And the Pakistani people are far more resilient, showing capability to absorb shocks, than the best estimates of their many detractors. So, maybe in this current ambience of fragmentation lies some hope for future stability.
Benazir's will that enshrined her spirit, the CEC's decisions, the comments by the new chairman and the co-chairman have all forged a forceful moral, organisational and political line in an extremely delicate situation By Prof Jamaluddin Naqvi The assassination of
Pakistan People's Party (PPP) chairperson Benazir Bhutto has grieved every In her death, Benazir has proved wrong the prophets of doom and those who see Pakistan as a failed state, a state about to splinter. The truth is that these regions of Pakistan have no other place to go, no space to reorder them. They are fated to live, suffer or prosper as one. Democracy is an inexhaustible concept but we are not talking of an ideal democracy as one may subjectively wish, but of a democracy dictated by ground realities. Even if it is accepted that democracy is the 'end of history', we are still at the starting point and have miles and miles to go. The recent meeting of the PPP's Central Executive Committee (CEC) at Naudero handled the host of problems -- moral, transitional and political -- superbly. Benazir Bhutto's will that enshrined her spirit, the CEC's decisions, the comments by the new chairman Bilawal and the co-chairman Asif Ali Zardari have all forged a forceful moral, organisational and political line in an extremely delicate situation. Beginning with the moral aspect, the PPP's decisions placed a soothing balm on a traumatised nation suffering from the shock of Benazir's assassination. The transition to the post-Benazir PPP was worked out to the satisfaction of most. The political line that was worked out by the CEC carries forward the politics of the assassinated leader. It belies those who believed or said that the the PPP was a one-person party. Despite all the twists and turns, the political line is clear. In a nutshell, the PPP is headed to form a broad-based civilian alternate to the King's Party. This assessment, coupled with the strategic objective of containing extremism, explains many moves of Benazir and the PPP. The party has been insisting on contesting the forthcoming general elections, and demanding that they be held in a free and fair. If the PPP wins, it can move towards its objective of consensus in one way; but if the elections are rigged, it can again move towards the same objective pursuing an alternative path. This also explains Benazir's camaraderie with Nawaz Sharif, who responded admirably. This further explains Benazir's efforts to mend fences with Mir Khair Bux Marri, Nasim Wali Khan and deposed Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry. Most of all, it explains on the one hand relationship of Benazir with the United States and on the other with the army. But that requires separate treatment. Here it will suffice to point out that Benazir and the US had a common objective -- eradicating or, at least, containing extremism. For that, the US requires the assistance of both the Pakistan Army and the popular civil force of the PPP. The lawyers' movement weakened President Musharraf and now Pakistan has a new army chief. The PPP accepts the role of the army but wants it under civilian control -- under the control of a broad based civilian government that would lead to a revival of a democratic Pakistan. The seed of a new democratic Pakistan was sown by the pre-PCO Supreme Court and nurtured by the lawyers' movement. It has moved forward by the spirit of Benazir and will grow further under a civilian government. Pakistan is poised to see happier days. The spirit of Benazir is pulling all floating intellectuals and activists to the yoke of the cavalcade of democracy.
The loot and arson that took place after the tragic assassination of Benazir has shaken the confidence of all the citizenry Dr Khalil Ahmad Regardless of the controversy whether we human beings are by nature good or bad, what is crucially required to keep our society intact is that we must be treated as free agents. This washes away all those excuses the science of psychology, and its Freuds and non-Freuds, has heaped on and which provide an eternal alibi for the criminals to prove their innocence under the guise of this or that mental state or illness, or this or that instinctive impulse. It is pleaded that mental state or illness or instinctive impulse eventually forced them into doing that crime -- that they were not just themselves at the time of crime. Thus, it is of immense
significance -- morally, socially as well as legally -- that everyone who The true relevance of this requirement demonstrates well when we are faced with a concrete danger to our life and property. It must be noted here that property is not a separate entity from one's self, though physically it is; rather, it is an extension of one's self and his life. "Every man has a property in his own person. This nobody has a right to, but himself," Locke observed. He held that "the reason why men enter into society is the preservation of their property." Without property we, who are not all mystics, are just in the midst of a forced hermitage, a state of social and existential nothingness. Probably this is why we protect our property at the risk of our life and certainly this is why we take lives of others to grab their property. Also, this was why in the eighteenth century England stealing was punishable by death. It is in this context that the focus of British classical liberals, such as Locke (1632-1704) and Hume (1711-1776), on the protective function of government can be best understood. Locke maintains that "government has no other end, but the preservation of property." Hume believed that "the convention for the distinction of property, and for the stability of possession, is of all circumstances the most necessary to the establishment of human society, and that after the agreement for the fixing and observing of this rule, there remains little or nothing to be done towards settling a perfect harmony and concord." For any authority that takes on the task of governing a people, the foremost thing is to extend protection of life and property to all the individuals under its jurisdiction. If the government fails to deliver that, it loses the confidence and trust of its people. Opposed to all this, the state in Pakistan, as a rule, has been quite unmindful of this foremost responsibility. In the heat of the moment, such as the assassination of Benazir, it just sleeps. Whatever the form of government may be, either civilian or military, lame excuses are made on such occasions and people are allowed to vent their anger at the cost of others. The rulers think that this helps divert people's attention from the real issues and culprits. The loot and arson that took place after the tragic assassination of Benazir has shaken the confidence of all the citizenry. No doubt, her assassination must be condemned in unequivocal terms. On the face of it, the event itself is the strongest evidence of the state's criminal negligence in protecting the lives of the people and their leaders. But, of course, it should not be taken as an excuse for the uncalled for lawlessness to prevail. No incident of any magnitude licences anyone to incur damage to the life and property of fellow citizens. However, the fact is that as the news of Benazir's assassination spread, unruly mobs took to the streets and markets and let loose a reign of terror as if no administrative authority existed in the country. From big cities to small towns, routine life and businesses suffered a standstill for days. As many as 58 people were killed amidst the worst lawlessness. The state's conspicuous absence from the scene further created a sense of fear and insecurity among the people. Though the initial estimates of loss and damage have started pouring in, the real damage that has shattered the society's trust in the ability of the state to protect the citizenry is immeasurable. This was not the first such incident when the people of Pakistan were forsaken by the state. Only a few months back, in May 2007 Karachi was subjected to a most brazen show of lawlessness under the criminal silence of provincial and federal governments. The fact of the matter is that whenever there is such a public outrage, the theory, 'let the people vent their anger', comes into force and the government's administrative authority disappears altogether. As to the December 27 chaos, there are concerns that in some cases the looting, particularly of banks, was done by organised groups. All this is outrageous. However, what is more outrageous is that the government has set up a commission that will assess the extent of the damage done to private and public property. What, in fact, is required is the setting up of a commission including representatives of all sections of society. This commission should be tasked first of all with the determination of the fact that why the personnel of law-enforcing agencies were absent when the reign of terror was let loose across the country. Also, those found guilty of negligence should be awarded exemplary punishments. As to the demand of compensation being made by manufacturers, traders, transporters and small businesspeople who suffered losses, they should realise that it will backfire. Seeking compensation from the government will result only in levying of more taxes and entrenching of the rentiers' regime. Ultimately it will hurt their own businesses by reducing the already shrinking purchasing power of the common people. The lawful course is to file damages suits in the courts, against both law-enforcing agencies and ransackers. This will set a precedent for the future also. But as is expected, the courts may not be able to provide justice to the affectees. In this case, the government will be stripped of all the semblance of its protective function, and it will also lose all the moral, legal and constitutional authority to tax the citizens. (The
writer is associated with Alternate Solutions Institute. Email:
khalil@asinstitute.org)
A
different viewpoint By Waseem Rauf It was a national tragedy
to lose a twice elected prime minister and a popular leader in such a brutal
fashion. Perhaps this should have put the nation on a different course, but
we have a history of As a nation, we have the habit of focussing on the superficial aspect of matters only, without giving due consideration to the subtleties. Or perhaps we shy away intentionally, because that would imply actions which we, as a nation, are in no mood to take. We will mourn and protest, but will not bother to investigate. It seems that the government has decided to bury the matter of Benazir's tragic assassination. On the one hand, it has termed it an attack masterminded by al-Qaeda; while, on the other hand, it has declared that her death was the result of an accident. In fact, the statements issued by the government in its various press briefings do not make any sense, as they are haphazard and contradictory. The Pakistan People's Party (PPP), on the other hand, had decided not to go for Benazir's autopsy, despite demanding an international probe under the auspices of the United Nations into her assassination. We celebrate the birth anniversaries of celebrated personalities -- be they saints or political leaders -- whole heartedly, but do not tend to follow their ideals. In fact, we do not allow even others to follow their ideals. Benazir Bhutto Shaheed, in one of her last interviews, rightly said that in the aftermath of any untoward event, instead of playing the blame game, we must focus on who are the beneficiaries. It is not fair to label all bomb blasts as suicide bombings, attributed to the Taliban and al-Qaeda. Following Benazir's line, the people who seem to benefit the most from this tragedy are President General (r) Pervez Musharraf and leaders of the King's Party -- the Pakistan Muslim League-Quaid (PML-Q). President Musharraf saw Benazir as a threat to his intention of clinging on to power forever. He also knew that the United States considered the late Benazir as his suitable replacement, also keeping in view the fact that she had vowed to deliver better than the former general. This, coupled with the allegations levelled by US presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, may be mere speculation, but in our tumultuous country everyone is a prime suspect. Who knows Benazir's assassination might be related to the extra-judicial killing of her brother Mir Murtaza Bhutto during her second term as prime minister, which is another example of a closed case! Coming back to our national traits, we are inclined towards exaggeration. The loss of a charming and lively leader like Benazir in a public rally has saddened even those people who had strong disagreements with her and the PPP. It has been unanimously condemned by all because besides being a successful stateswoman, she enjoyed a strong mandate and devoted following all over the country. She deserves to be called a martyr and labelling her Shaheed-i-Jamhooriat (the martyr of democracy) is an apt tribute to her. It is optimism about our leaders that makes people hope that at some point in time they would let go their authority and would give us a surprise. But that never happens in this great country of ours. This is common for both military dictators and political leaders. Instead of delegating the authority to elect the new leader of the party to the Central Executive Committee (CEC), the hand written note attributed to the late Benazir has ascended her 19-year-old son to the PPP's throne. The CEC readily endorsed the decision, the only thing it is good for. This monarchic decision has not only hinted at the dearth of leadership in the PPP, but also exposed how democratic the party's leaders are. Benazir by all standards was a charismatic leader and should be paid tributes for that, but labelleling her as the 'Mother of the Nation' is perhaps incorrect. She might be the 'Mother of the PPP', but for the rest of the nation she was definitely not the 'Mother of the Nation', a title reserved for Miss Fatima Jinnah. It also confirms the viewpoint that we, as a nation, worship personalities and not their ideals. It has now become evident that people are not devoted to the so-called ideals of the PPP; rather it is Zulfikar Ali Bhutto and his descendents that the people are blindly following. This is analogous to people worshipping the saints instead of following their teachings. Last but not the least, the most bitter trait of all is vandalism. We love chaos (in fact, we long for it) and break all hell loose whenever we get a chance. We will never come out peacefully, we will not show up for noble causes, we cannot stand against dictators, but we are ready for topsy-turvy all the time. Peaceful protest? No sir, not our alley. The only way known to us for the expression of anger and grief is the destruction of public and private property. It seems that the government, on its part, allows hooliganism to calm the public reaction and to distract the common people from its failures. Such riots result in the catharsis of the nation and the emotional tension against the regime fails to build up, hence purging the anti-government sentiments. But at what expense? The cumulative loss of all the damage, according to some figures, is more than Rs 450 billion, which is bound to further increase our budgetary deficit. However, rest assured, Benazir's assassination too shall be left uninvestigated and soon be forgotten, just like the May 12 tragedy in Karachi.
A time of crises The new year does not promise a better future for the people of Pakistan By Sadia Nasir New Year's Eve is the time
for celebration and new resolutions, but this time can we -- the citizens Despite repeated government claims, the flour crisis is worsening across the country. The disruption of communications recently also added to this problem. Pakistan, being an agricultural country, should not have been facing wheat or sugar crisis in the first place. According to the Economic Survey of Pakistan 2006-07, there had been bumper wheat and sugarcane crops in the previous year. The production of wheat was up by 10.5 per cent to 23.5 million tonnes -- the highest ever recorded in the country's history. With such record production of wheat, the present flour crisis is incomprehensible. The main reasons for such a situation seem to be the smuggling of wheat / flour out of the country, and hoarding of wheat to create an artificial shortage to get possible gains later by selling it at an inflated price. Many of the people involved are or were a part of the government, as was the case in the sugar crisis a few months back. As far as the power crisis is concerned, the situation started deteriorating at the end of the last year, with electricity shortage fluctuating between 1,000-3,000 megawatts. It worsened further with the poor law and order situation, leading to problems in transporting furnace oil and diesel through the railways and other means. With large scale damage to the railways infrastructure, there are problems for both the general travellers and the industries, With the continued shortfall of around 3,000 megawatts, the concerned authorities increased load-shedding in both rural and urban areas. According to the officials, the power shortfall might increase to 5,000 megawatts by the next summer season. The government, instead of working on some alternative sources, has resorted to asking all the distribution companies to increase the load-shedding hours to overcome the shortfall, in addition to closing the canals, release of less water by provincial irrigation departments and suspension of gas supply to power generating plants. Water shortage in dams because of lack of winter rains has intensified the power crisis. According to official statements, the Tarbela dam is 43 feet below the required level of water while the Mangla dam is 42 feet below the required level of water, adding to the power crisis. There is serious need to diversify the power generation sources within the country along with building of new dams and other projects, which would indeed take a long time. Hydro power projects, and power generation by coal, wind or nuclear energy can be the possible alternatives. The most discussed solution of development of water resources would indeed solve the problem in the long run, but in the short-term there is a limit to constructing costly thermal power projects because of their high economic costs. Also the financial conditions of the power-generating companies is not very sound, as is evident from the lack of capacity of these companies to utilise the available stock of furnace oil in official reserves. According to some reports, the inter-corporate debt, which crossed Rs 180 billion, led to this financial state of the power companies, though subsidies were provided by the government. There is also need for a systematic upgrading and regular inspections of generation plants to correctly assess the capabilities of the sources of electricity supply and their proper management. Appropriate measures are required to ensure safety of the transmitters and supply lines, and awareness campaign must be started for the public focussing on technical advice as well as the methods to reduce energy loads and leakages, and also to help the law-enforcing agencies in providing information regarding any sabotage activity. The demand of power varies in summer and winter, therefore an appropriate planning ahead of these seasons is required. At present Pakistan meets its more than 75 percent of its energy requirement from domestic resources. Around 50.4 percent of its energy need is met by the indigenous gas, 28.4 percent by domestic and imported oil, and 12.7 percent by hydro electricity. Coal and nuclear contribution to energy use is limited to 7.0 per cent and 1 per cent, respectively. While the widening of energy supply and demand gap remains a challenge for Pakistan, the government should also consider installation of some nuclear power plants to meet the requirements. There is anticipation of continued energy crisis in the next two years due to a 50 per cent increase in the demand and a slow improvement in the supply. However, the official sources are hoping that the power deficit will start decreasing during the start of 2009, because various new power generation projects would be started by that time. At present, the energy shortage is severe and widespread, and different sectors are contributing to each other's problems. The gas shortage has also worsened over the last few weeks and the Sui Northern Gas Pipeline Limited (SNGPL) is said to be faced with a shortfall of 700 million cubic feet per day. This shortage has been met by suspending supplies to some 300 industrial units in Punjab and the NWFP. The vulnerability of the government can be gauged from the fact that the chairperson of the Water and Power Development Authority (WAPDA) is said to have proposed an increase in weekly holidays for industry to cope with the power shortage. This is not a feasible or long-term solution for the shortage. Meanwhile, the government is planning to add an overall power generation capacity of about 7,880 megawatts by 2010 and almost 60 per cent of the capacity is to be based on natural gas. With such gas supply conditions in country, how new projects based on natural gas would be workable remains to be seen.
Not a soul in this country considers anything that the government says or does as containing an iota of credibility By Aasim Sajjad Akhtar The gruesome killing of more than 20 policemen and a handful of civilians in a bomb blast outside the Lahore High Court (LHC) is the latest indicator of just how rapidly the Pakistani state is unravelling. It is significant that the violence has seeped into the heartland of the country, and more specifically its political nerve-centre, Lahore. Till now it has been the twin cities of Rawalpindi and Islamabad, Karachi, and large parts of the NWFP that have borne the brunt of the fallout of the 'war on terror'. One can only shudder at what might come next. That the government issued
its standard rejoinder was to be expected. Practically not a soul in this The site of the blast is telling. Every Thursday for almost a year, lawyers have gathered at the GPO chowk and marched up The Mall towards the Punjab Assembly building. Lahore's lawyers have spearheaded the anti-dictatorship movement from the outset. They have been amongst the few large and organised groups that have remained on the streets as the momentum of the movement has waned on account of the various shocks to which society has been subject over the past few weeks. On the day of the blast lawyers from the city courts were on their way to the GPO chowk, while high court lawyers had yet to emerge from within the LHC premises. Why did the attackers strike before the lawyers actually converged on the site? What seems most likely is that this was a warning to Lahore's lawyers to desist from continuing their protests. The subliminal message is that if the lawyers persist with their agitation, then next time the bombers will wait for the black coats before unleashing their terror. In any case the authorities
may now actually ban gatherings entirely, citing the rising terrorist It is significant that the attacks on police do not induce a substantial reaction from the larger public. This suggests just how alienated from the state people have become. There is almost no sympathy for those who have died, the vast majority of whom must surely be considered innocents that happen to be pawns in a dirty war in which the protagonists are often indistinguishable. A related point is the severe dip in morale within the police, paramilitary forces and the army itself. Generals, brigadiers and colonels do not face the risks that jawans standing at road blocks do. It is now clear that a large and growing number of the rank and file within the various security forces are themselves gripped by discontent. Their salaries are pitiful, the official facilities in which they reside completely inadequate, and their lives constantly dangling in front of a precipice of violence. Commentators of all stripes have long depicted Pakistan's state as being crisis-ridden. But at the present time, even the word crisis seems to understate what is unfolding in front of our eyes. The problem is that the military establishment that runs this country seems to think that everything is completely under control, or at least that it alone has the capacity and wherewithal to deal with the plethora of problems confronting Pakistan. Needless to say most Pakistanis find this logic to be perverse given that things have gotten progressively worse over the course of the past few years and particularly over the past few months. The claim is even more staggering in light of how the regime has launched an all-out offensive against opposition political workers, and particularly those of the Pakistan People's Party (PPP), in the aftermath of Benazir Bhutto's assassination. Lest one forget, Musharraf's imposition of emergency did nothing to address the worsening problem of 'extremism' and instead the targets were pro-democracy forces. More recently the major faces of the Musharraf regime, former Punjab chief minister Pervaiz Elahi standing out amongst them, have been doing their best to inflame ethnic tensions. In the aftermath of December 27, the only responsible thing to do would have been for those in power to quit. But instead all signs point to the fact that the government and its cronies are in fact exacerbating the problem. The only explanation that one can come up with is that the establishment is no longer convinced that it can secure an election result that suits its needs and, therefore, it has to create conditions that make the holding of elections untenable. One would not be surprised if the establishment decided to engineer a low-intensity civil war to justify putting elections off. In fact, some might argue that we are already in the midst of exactly such a war. And from the looks of it, peace is not something that anyone is actually working towards. In any case the holding of legitimate elections was always untenable under this regime, and this has not changed. Aside from the General Headquarters (GHQ) and its coterie of establishment politicians, we also have to contend with the perpetual gaze of the 'great' United States of America. Thus it would be foolish to put all of one's eggs in the election basket. Yet, despite the formidable odds, it appears that elections of some kind right now remain the only way in which ordinary Pakistanis can express their anti-establishment sentiments (largely because a mass movement is not in the making). And it goes without saying that these sentiments are intensifying with each passing day. This does not mean that the principled demands around which diverse constituencies have coalesced over the past 10 months should be abandoned. In fact the issue of the judiciary is not likely to go away any time soon, nor will the resentment against generals for putting Pakistan into a position where unthinkable violence is becoming almost a routine affair. If and when elections are held, the crisis of the state will not necessarily ebb. Whichever way one looks at it, the prospects of Pakistan attaining a minimum level of stability in the short-term are very remote. But if there is to be something to look forward to in the medium-term, the very first step is rejecting the outrageous logic of the sitting regime that it has to stay in power to prevent Pakistan from falling prey to 'extremism'. This makes for good news in America and on the international media networks, but it is ripping Pakistan apart. And unless war-torn Iraq and Afghanistan are our paragons of success, we need to recognise that Pakistan's biggest contradiction remains that between an establishment that is clinging onto its 60 year old monopoly over the state for dear life and those who want to see genuine change. What is alarming is the establishment's capacity and willingness to create disorder just to stay in power, but no political power remains intact without the (active or passive) consent of those it rules over. Once enough of us say no, it will be impossible for those playing cynical games in the GHQ and the Pentagon to carry on.
By Kaleem Omar If war is too serious a business to be left to the generals, what about TV news coverage? That was the question asked by one cynical American commentator back in the last week of March 2003 as the US invasion of Iraq got underway. He noted that at times it seemed as if there were as many former generals (and colonels and majors) chattering on the US news channels as there were 'embedded' journalists hurtling toward Baghdad. Well, sort of hurtling anyway -- given the fact that tanks and armoured personnel carriers aren't exactly Ferrari Formula One racing cars. Cynical American commentators were a very rare breed in those days, with most of the mainstream US media behaving like wimps and swallowing the Bush administration's lies about why it was invading Iraq hook, line and sinker. Which made the anti-administration tone of jokes on American late-night TV shows a welcome change from the fawning attitude of the news channels. Here is a sampling: Jay Leno: "War continues in Iraq. They're calling it Operation Iraqi Freedom. They were going to call it Operation Iraqi Liberation until they realised that spells 'OIL'." Craig Kilborn: "As fighting in Iraq intensifies, President Bush delivered his supplemental war budget to Congress. The money will cover 30 days of fighting; then we'll be sent one war every other month until we cancel our subscription." Jay Leno: "CNN said that after the war, there is a plan to divide Iraq into three parts -- regular, premium and unleaded." Jon Stewart: "Yesterday, the president met with a group he calls the coalition of the willing. Or, as the rest of the world calls them, Britain and Spain." Jay Leno: "Iraq began destroying those missiles they don't have over the weekend. See, President Bush may be the smartest military president in history. First, he gets Iraq to destroy their own weapons. Then he declares war." Bill Maher: "The president boasted at the top of his press conference that we have the support now of Britain and Spain for our attack on Iraq. You know, when you want to make it perfectly clear to the world that you're not an imperialist, the people you want in your corner are Britain and Spain." (Countries that were once two of the world's biggest imperialist powers). Craig Kilborn: "President Bush spent last night calling world leaders to support the war with Iraq and it is sad when the most powerful man on earth is yelling, 'I know you're there, pick up, pick up'." Conan O'Brien: "CBS news anchor Dan Rather has interviewed Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein. When asked what it was like to talk to a crazy man, Saddam said, 'It's not so bad'." Craig Kilborn: "New rumours that Saddam Hussein is planning to flee to a castle in Libya with 10 billion dollars. Now President Bush doesn't know whether to nuke him or give him a tax cut." Stephen Colbert (explaining, on the Daily Show, whether war could be averted): "All Iraq has to do is get rid of its conventional weapons, disclose the location of its biological, chemical and nuclear weapons and destroy them -- by Monday. If Iraq has weapons of mass destruction it would have to use weapons of mass destruction to destroy them -- by Monday. But if it does that, it would be an admission that it has weapons of mass destruction, which would be grounds for war." Jay Leno: "Experts say that if we go to war with Iraq, oil could reach as much as $ 80 a barrel. Of course, after the war it will be free." (In fact, oil is now hovering around the $ 100 a barrel mark. That's why US oil companies like Exxon-Mobil are making all-time record profits.) Bill Maher: "Iraq now says that it will, after all, destroy its missiles. President Bush said, 'Please, I used to pull the same trick. There'd be an intervention, I'd make a big show of pouring out the liquor and then there was case under the floorboards'." Jay Leno: "President Bush announced tonight that he believes in democracy and that democracy can exist in Iraq. They can have a strong economy, they can have a good health care plan, and they can have free and fair voting. Iraq? We can't even get this in Florida." (Florida, the land of 'pregnant' and 'dimpled' chads, was where Bush's younger brother Jeb was governor back in the days of the US 2000 presidential election and where the heavily over-made-up Katherine Harris, aka 'Cruella de Ville', was state secretary of state.) David Letterman: "President Bush has said that he does not need approval from the UN to wage war, and I'm thinking, well, hell, he didn't need the approval of the American voters to become president either." (Former President Bill Clinton, who had signed a deal back then with a US television network to appear in 10 one-minute slots, along with former Republican presidential candidate Bob Dole, had his own take on this when he said, 'Bush won the election fair and square -- five to four in the Supreme Court.') Craig Kilborn: 'Democrats were quick to point out that President Bush's budget creates a one trillion dollar deficit. The White House quickly responded with, 'Hey, look over there, it's Saddam Hussein'." Jon Stewart: "We have it. The smoking gun. The evidence. The potential weapon of mass destruction we have been looking for as our pretext of invading Iraq. There's just one problem -- it's in North Korea." Jay Leno: "Well, it looks like we've moved a step closer to war. Not with Iraq. With France and Germany. How did we screw that one up?" Jay Leno: "As we head to war with Iraq, President Bush wants to make one thing clear. This war is not about oil, it's about gasoline." Jay Leno: "In a speech earlier today, President Bush said if Iraq gets rid of Saddam Hussein, he will help the Iraqi people with food, medicine, supplies, housing, education -- anything that's needed. Isn't that amazing? He finally comes up with a domestic agenda -- and it's for Iraq. Maybe we could bring that here if it works out." Rumour has it that the real brains behind the invasion of Iraq was not Dick Cheney or Donald Rumsfeld or even Condoleezza Rice. No, it was Bush's then-chief political advisor, Karl Rove -- the man who put him in the White House in the first place. That's why the administration's secret name for 'Operation Iraqi Freedom' was 'Operation Re-elect Bush'. It worked, too. firstperson Advocating legal education Justice delayed is justice denied, but justice hurried is also justice buried By Zaman Khan Hyderabad Deccan was known
for Usmania University before the subcontinent's partition. Now the NALSAR is an all-residential university for both men and women. Not only is the university's campus beautiful, a lot of research work is being undertaken here. Since the chief justice of Andhra Predesh is chancellor of the university, there is no political interference of any sort. The university offers a five-year bachelors' degree in Law. The students of NALSAR have made their name all over the world. The scribe recently had an opportunity to spend a couple of days in the guest house of NALSAR during a workshop being conducted there. On this occasion, The News on Sunday interviewed the university's vice-chancellor, Prefossor Ranbir Singh, on the education of law and related issues. Excerpts follow: The News on Sunday: Where were you born and from where did you get your early education? Ranbir Singh: I was born in the village of Rohtik. I was initially educated at a local school. Then I took admission in Krukrshtar University, from where I did my bachelors in Law and where I started teaching later. After that, I taught at one of the most prestigious law schools of India, Banglore Law School, before being asked by the government of Andhar Pradesh to join the National Academy of Legal Studies and Research (NALSAR) as a registrar. Later, I became the university's first vice-chancellor and am currently about to start my fourth three-year term in this capacity. NALSAR has been founded on the pattern of Banglore Law School, where I had taught in 1996-7. TNS: Would you tell us more about NALSAR? RS: It was decided at a meeting of law ministers and law secretaries in 1996 that Banglore Law School was a big success and a similar university should be opened in Hyderabad. TNS: What was the purpose of establishing this university? RS: India is still faced with the problem of imparting quality legal education. Not much thought was given to provide the best legal education in the country. India established the best of IT institutions, it established the best of medical institutions, but unfortunately that did not happen to legal education; despite the fact that in every part of the world, including India, lawyers have been at the forefront -- they have been the best of statesmen and freedom fighters. Considering this, it is unfortunate that not much has been done to establish quality legal education institutions in India. TNS: What is the system of legal education in India? RS: There are more than 600 colleges in India exclusively teaching law, with more than 2.5 million students. Most of these are in the private sector, but not even one of them is of international standard. Similarly, of the 400 universities in India, at least 100 have law faculties. Some of them were doing extremely well in the 1980s and the 1990s, but unfortunately their standard has declined. The major problem is that we do not have good teachers. There used to be a time when people came in the teaching profession by choice, and not for money. The good students became lawyers and later judges, but we failed to produce good teachers. This was the main reason that we could not attract the best of students to study law. TNS: What impact it had on the Indian society and the delivery of justice? RS: The impact is obvious -- if you do not have quality law schools, you do not produce good lawyers, who later become good judges. And it will ultimately affect the delivery of justice in the country. A lot of unfilled vacancies of judges, of both high courts and lower courts, are advertised in newspapers on a regular basis. This reflects that the legal profession is in decline today. In the 1980 we had the best of teachers, but the students were not really interested in law studies. They would do something else, like master's in some other subject, side by side. But now the things have changed -- the law students come through entrance examination; and are more professional, focussed and articulate. As a result, the quality of law students has generally improved. TNS: How many law universities there are in India? RS: Presently there are 13 law universities in India. TNS: And how many students are studying there? RS: We admit 80 students every year, for which we conduct an all-India test of about 6,000 applicants. 20 seats are reserved for foreign students, while the remaining 60 are for Indians. Even Pakistanis are welcome, as we especially encourage students from South Asia Association of Regional Cooperation (SAARC) member countries to apply for admission here. TNS: Would you tell us something about the current students and courses? RS: The current students of NALSAR are extremely talented. We have a five-year integrated course for students who had completed their intermediate. The level of education being imparted at the university is very high and there is tough competition among the students. We have 50 different courses of law and every student is supposed to write 50 papers during his stay at NALSAR, which entails a lot of research work in all kind of cases. So, those who get good grades automatically become good lawyers. TNS: Do all of them join the legal profession? RS: No, not all join the legal profession -- some of them may go for other jobs, while others may opt for further studies abroad. TNS: What are your views on the judicial system in India? RS: As far as the justice system in India is concerned, people have a lot of faith in it. They never look to the government or the administration; they look to the judiciary. It is because of this reason that we have so many litigation cases in Indian courts. The judicial system is very transparent and doing a wonderful job, right from the Supreme Court of India to the lower courts. But there are difficulties too, because the number of litigation cases and the pendency rate are very high. TNS: Isn't justice delayed, justice denied? RS: But justice hurried is also justice buried, so both have to be balanced. Thanks to the availability of new fora, of lot of emphasis has shifted to mediation and the alternate system of dispute resolution. Also, the panchayat system is being strengthened and there is bill pending in parliament about village courts deciding small cases. This is not to say that there is no corruption in the judicial system in India. TNS: What are your comments on judicial activism in India? RS: Judicial activism, which we call public interest litigation, has been doing great in India. It is not really a new thing. If you see provisions of the Indian Constitution, Article 141 reads: "Any case decided by the Supreme Court of India becomes a law. It is the duty of the Supreme Court to do complete justice." In the light of this provision, the Supreme Court and high courts do not look into the locus standee doctrine in a very, very conservative manner. The basic idea is that even if you are not an aggrieved party, but are a spirited citizen, and some wrong or injustice has been done, you can move the high court. You can also move the Supreme Court of India if you still feel aggrieved after the high court's decision. I believe this is something very good. At times, the superior courts also take suo motu action on a newspaper report or a letter. TNS: What is the procedure of removing a judge of a superior court in India? RS: This involves impeachment by the Supreme Court of India, but it is a very tedious process. The impeachment proceedings ultimately go to parliament. So far, there have been impeachment proceedings against only one judge of the Supreme Court of India, but even he was not impeached ultimately. Now there is thinking in the country that we need to have a National Judicial Commission, which should appoint judges of the superior courts and look into allegations of corruption or any other misuse of power against them. TNS: There was news recently that the Supreme of Court India took action against a news paper for publishing a story against the son of a former chief justice of India and in reaction some leading intellectuals of India issued a statement condemning this action. What about the contempt law? RS: The contempt law is there, but at the same time truth should be defended at all costs. There is loud thinking that courts should maintain their dignity ñ if there is truth in some allegation, it should not attract contempt of court. TNS: What should be the role of lawyers? RS: If you look at the legal system of India, lawyers are as much a part of the court as are judges. They are an active party of the system of delivery of justice. I think lawyers should command the same respect as judges do, if the legal system has to sustain. Because they are a very important pillar of the legal system, utmost importance should be accorded to lawyers.
It is too early to weigh up the consequences of the PPP chairperson's tragic assassination By Dr Arif Azad There comes a time when
word fails and emotions establish their hold. You do not want to say In the first few hours following Benazir's tragic assassination, the usual line of Islamist terrorist attack was played up. Later on, when the complex story began to unfold, a whole host of theories arose from nowhere. Benazir, it transpired, was hit three times in the head and neck. This was followed by a suicide bomb, which killed more than 20 people. The bullets proved fatal and the twice former prime minister died before she could reach hospital, according to the reports that have now been confirmed by the airing of various videos. It is too early to weigh up the consequences of such an atrocious act. The full sorrow of Benazir's assassination is slowly sinking in, knitting the whole country in a single brow of grief. With her elimination, the dream of a progressive future has been snuffled out for the foreseeable future at least. The question of the country's integrity has also come to the fore, as she symbolised the Pakistani federation. Even at her last public meeting, she made a pledge to work towards the preservation of the federation. In this backdrop, it is easy to understand why slogans of Pakistan's disintegration are already being voiced loud and clear in Sindh, the province to which she belonged. Like many other people, I had come to disagree with some of Benazir's policies lately. The major point of disagreement was her 'deal' with the widely unpopular President General (r) Pervez Musharraf. Most of us thought that it was a bad move, as it was likely to tarnish the reputation of her party. I also felt that, given the inbred anti-establishment tenor of the PPP, the powers-that-be were never going to accept Benazir whatever length she traversed to strike a 'deal' with them. We squabbled furiously with the 'pro-deal' wing of the PPP, though it was of more of a lovers' tiff. Initially I was firmly against the 'deal', but later I changed my point of view -- I reasoned to myself that the ground political realities in Pakistan would force Benazir to modify the 'deal' once she returned to the country. I began to sense that the 'deal' had undergone some change after the first attempt on Benazir's life on October 18 last year, the day she returned to Pakistan from exile. Later, after listening to a cross-section of opinion within the country, Benazir also seemed to have changed her position -- though constrained by the terms of the 'deal', and the combined pressure of the United States and the United Kingdom, she called for the resignation of President Musharraf and engaged in dialogue with Mian Nawaz Sharif. These locally-driven adroit shifts in Benazir's political strategy, coupled with her successful election campaign, may have upset the political applecart envisaged by the establishment. I began to increasingly feel that Pakistan had long needed Benazir, to give some pro-people dash to the country's oppressively controlled politics and hope of change to a vast majority of Pakistanis. Throughout the election campaign, I felt we were gradually inching towards the new hopeful future that her presence in Pakistan had triggered. As long as she was around, I argued that things could only get better, despite my own personal reservations about the 'deal'. Benazir was immensely resilient and attentive to the mood of the people -- and therein lay the hope of millions of people of Pakistan. On the election campaign trail, she was her usual hand-gladding and flesh-pressing politician, hectoring the regime for its incompetence on all fronts in a language that tapped into the popular disenchantment with the government. It was as if we were witnessing Benazir of 1986, when her arrival from exile rejuvenated the political life of the country. She radiated the promise of a great future, both in 1986 and 2007. She spent two stints in power, whose exercise was heavily compromised by her desire to seek accommodation with the establishment to lay the basis of democratic and progressive Pakistan. The powers-that-be, however, rebuffed her overtures and constantly conspired to undermine her. But Benazir was and will always remain a constant presence in our lives -- on account of her political bravery, trials and tribulations, and tireless advocacy for the cause of the downtrodden. Her narrative shaped our lives; she became the reference point and our compass; and she was a living presence in drawing rooms, cafes and media outlets. I cannot quite imagine my life, and by extension the life of a vast majority of Pakistanis, would be the same without her. That radiant hope, which animated our lives in the past few months, has been cruelly snuffled out now. We are floundering again. How long will this last, no one can predict!
|
|
eerie peace in the aftermath of uncertainty -- and anarchy. The year closed
on an unfortunate note, after bearing witness to talks of a cautious liaison
between the 'lady-politician' and the 'one-time-general'. As the sun set over
the clear horizon, merging with the edges of the far-away Arabian Sea,
Karachi's streets were littered with remnants of smouldering coal. Orange
peels and mounds of uncollected garbage filled deserted roads. This was a
grim reminder of the carnage that had wrecked the city post-December 27, when
Pakistan People's Party (PPP) Chairperson Benazir Bhutto was assassinated in
Rawalpindi. Carcasses of cars lay abandoned in side streets -- perhaps the
city government had hidden them to quell greater public apprehension. You
could easily be seeing the war-ridden streets of Beirut or even Baghdad, and
no one would know the difference!
one, from the man on the street to the United Nations. Though Benazir was not
in government, her death has been mourned by states and individuals all
around the globe. For the people of Pakistan it was a rude and massive shock,
after which they are struggling to keep their optimism intact. On a positive
side, their vision of a new democratic Pakistan has been strengthened by the
blood of the martyr.
commits an offence must be tried and punished accordingly. It behooves to be
presumed that it is a certain person and it is s/he and only s/he who
committed the crime. Otherwise, we will only have crimes and no criminals, a
state of affairs we cannot afford if we believe in justice and its
dispensation as the sine qua non for a healthy society.
forgetfulness. We tend to forget the greatest calamities that befall us. On
every loss we panic for a while, disrupt the civic life and then proceed
onwards (read backwards), as if nothing ever happened. Please recall the
murders of two sitting prime ministers, the dismemberment of the eastern wing
of the country, and the emergencies and the martial laws. We simply refuse to
post mortem, be it our national tragedies or our slain leaders. We initially
raise a lot of hue and cry, and then get over the tragedy as early as
possible. We are currently busy trying to forget the honourable judges who
risked their jobs for the cause of justice.
of Pakistan -- celebrate and have high hopes from the coming year when
several crises are looming over the entire nation? With power shortages,
load-shedding of gas and flour scarcity, coupled with the ongoing political
problems, it appears to be a time of crises. With the worsening of political
and law and order situation following the tragic assassination of Benazir
Bhutto, problems for the common people have increased manifold.
country considers anything that the government says or does as containing an
iota of credibility. The system of law and order has completely broken down
and it is clear that the regime is at best powerless to stop, and at worst
directly responsible for, the slide towards indiscriminate and mindless
violence.
threat. Projecting into the short-term future, it is also possible that a
spate of violence over the next few weeks precipitates an announcement
putting off elections. Whatever happens, those responsible for the violence
are slowly but surely achieving their objectives.
people have forgotten this university, but credit is due to the state of
Andhra Predesh in India for not forgetting about quality education ñ one of
the best law universities in India was established on the outskirts of the
Hyderabad city in the late 1990s. The National Academy of Legal Studies and
Research (NALSAR), a law university established under the Andhra Pradesh Act
34 of 1998, is a fully residential university, engaged in teaching and
promoting research in law and allied disciplines. The university's campus is
spread over a 50-acre site, about 30 kilometres from Hyderabad, on the bank
of a lake.
much, but you wish your pain is validated in every eye you meet in the
street, your moist-eyed look is mirrored in all others, and your gloom
becomes universal. When you realise that this is happening, you feel either
you have run out of your quota of words or you do not want to lean on them to
express yourself. This is exactly what I feel right now. I am sure that the
same feeling exists right across the country since the assassination of
Pakistan People's Party (PPP) Chairperson Benazir Bhutto. Though there had
existed a strong feeling among those following the twists and turns of
Pakistan that Benazir was going to be eliminated by the forces hostile to
her, the brutality and suddenness of the assassination shook us all beyond
measure.