|
|
|
|
 |
 |
  |
politics Crossing
the fine line Yeh
Woh issue Sceptic’s
Diary
politics How do you choose
between two bad options? Worse, the choice is about the government. You have
to elect fellow citizens to run your country. Their decisions will directly
impact your life. And all you’ve got is two bad choices? One desperate way of
dealing with this dilemma is to play these two against each other. Since you
have a choice at all — unlike in, say, a military dictatorship — you
choose one and replace it with the other every five years. Perhaps that is the mistake
the Indian voter made in 2009 it re-elected the Manmohan Singh and Sonia
Gandhi-led Congress back into power in 2009, as a reward for apparently good
governance. In 2004, Manmohan Singh became Prime Minister after the Congress
responded to the then Vajpayee government’s arrogant ‘India Shining’
claims by asking: what did the common man get? “Aam aadmi ko kya mila?”
went its counter-slogan. When the common man
re-elected Manmohan Singh into power in 2009, his government became far more
arrogant than merely claiming that India was Shining. It couldn’t care less
about India’s shine, and even less for the common man. It even stopped
pretending to be nice. This has been felt by the
common man most critically in inflation. It may seem that the biggest issue
in the 2014 general elections in India is Narendra Modi. It is not. It may
seem the biggest issue is corruption. Nope. It is inflation. The common man thinks,
rightly or wrongly, that the rising inflation, especially how food prices
have soared, is caused by corruption, in which the Manmohan government has
been brazen. In 2009, after the Congress
won a second term, the BJP looked lost in the woods. It was so listless that
its mothership, the Rashtriya Swayamsewak Sangh (RSS) asserted itself over
the party, something it had found increasingly difficult when Vajpayee was
the prime minister. How does the BJP go from there to seeming like a
contender for power in just five years? Because of Narendra Modi? No, because
of the Congress. Be it corruption scandals
or popular anti-corruption protests or public anger over violence against
women, the Manmohan government has typically responded by first ignoring that
there is a problem, then trying to solve the problem by brazen bulldozing
(police action even killed one anti-corruption protester in Delhi). When that
backfires they take to fake appeasement which is not only too little too
late, it’s not even genuine. Narendra Modi is a
disaster, an authoritarian once described by social scientist Ashis Nandy as
a “textbook fascist”. But can anybody in his right mind say that the
Congress should be given a third chance at power? The Delhi intelligentsia
insists Narendra Modi is not going to become prime minister. If you go state
by state and see how many seats his party is going to win, it does not become
a contender for power. But people say so often that he won’t become prime
minister that it betrays their anxiety. It is quite possible that the BJP
manages to build a ‘wave’ in UP and Bihar and surprises everybody. The
Lok Sabha election results tend to be the opposite of what the Delhi
intelligentsia expects. They thought Vajpayee would win in 2004 and that
Manmohan may not win in 2009. Given that we are stuck
with the Congress-BJP binary, those of us who are not fond of Modi may have
to see him as our prime minister and this should only serve to remind us of
the urgent task of creating and encouraging a viable third option. If Modi becomes PM he
won’t be able to rule India like he ruled Gujarat, because there he is
unchallenged king and in Delhi he would have coalition pressures to deal
with. India has a way of balancing things. “Indian society is centrist in
character, rejects extremes,” a young RSS ideologue tells me. Like the changing colours
of a chameleon, Narendra Modi has moderated himself. No longer does he taunt
Muslims, instead wants them to come attend his rallies to wash off the taint
of being ‘communal’. No longer does he make ‘Mian Musharraf’ an
election issue. His comments on Pakistan best illustrate how Modi has become
a moderate. In his speeches he has not been indulging in Pakistan-bashing.
Blaming Manmohan for not securing the country’s borders, he takes the same
line on Pakistan as the BJP: no talks until terrorism exists. Similarly, if
he were to become prime minister he would happily change that tack to pick up
threads Manmohan would leave, just as Manmohan picked up Vajpayee’s
threads. Just like the Indian
government’s Pakistan policy, one hopes India also has a continuum and if
Modi were to become PM, it would be business as usual. The writer is a journalist
based in Delhi.
There is an inverse relationship between anti-terrorism legislation and protecting civil liberties. Is there a way out? By Ahmad Nazir Warraich States confronting
terrorism and violence have an inverse relationship with human rights.
History tells us that the first casualty of extremism and violence is human
rights as whenever non-state actors in a country used violence as an
instrument of policy, the state has usually reacted by curtailing the space
for human rights in a bid to control violence. The argument always is that
state security encroaches on civil liberties. And that it is, therefore,
legitimate to limit civil liberties in the interest of state security, saving
lives. This is why it has always been seen as an inverse relationship, but
rights activists opine that it does not necessarily have to be so. A state of emergency could
be an insurgency, civil war, or other violence. However, the new face of such
a state of emergency is terrorism. The most recent example is the post
September 11 changes brought about in law in many countries, including
England and US. England declared an
emergency and then suspended some obligations it had incurred as a member of
the European Convention on Human Rights. Likewise, in the US, the Bush regime
— through the passage of the Patriot Act — moved to curtail people’s
human rights in the ‘interests of security’ and ‘save lives’. This
proved controversial and is believed to have cut back civil liberties of
American citizens and foreigners, or aliens, as they are defined in American
law. In support of this view,
much work has been done by various rights organisations, such as Human Rights
Watch (HRW), American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), Amnesty International,
etc. However, the government took the view that all this was justified on the
basis of state security and saving lives. In the opinion of rights activists,
the main areas of concern with regard to cutting back on civil liberties are:
preventive detention, torture and the right to privacy. The United Nations General
Assembly in a resolution has stated: “The promotion and protection of human
rights for all and the rule of law is essential to all components of the
strategy, recognising that effective counter-terrorism measures and the
promotion of human rights are not conflicting goals, but complementary and
mutually reinforcing” Terrorism is a denial of
human rights, and extremists by definition are against democracy. They deny
the state and its institutions. States have a duty to protect their citizens
and ensure that their human rights are protected. And the golden thread of
justice remains that you are innocent until proven guilty. The states of
emergency and consequent laws tend to adversely affect it. Such legislation
should not be rushed through, as it was reportedly done in the US and
England. It should be well thought out and debated. Hurried legislation
leaves loopholes vis-a-vis human rights protection. The concern is more with
the trampling over of rights of the innocent. Many of the measures taken by
states with regard to fighting terrorism are necessary to protect the life
and liberty of people, but care should be taken to fulfill the constitutional
guarantees of fundamental rights. In addition, all counter-terror legislation
should be passed through an open, broad-based consultation process so that
national consensus can be built behind it. Pakistan is one of the
worst-hit countries by terrorism. In a recent decision, the Prime Minister
and his Cabinet have decided to bring changes in the relevant law. As a first
step, the Anti-Terrorism Amendment Ordinance, 2013 has been promulgated.
Under this, suspects can now be held for upto 3 months. Text messages, telephone
calls, and e-mails may be used as evidence. These measures can be used both
against terrorists and criminals in cases such as extortion, kidnapping for
ransom, and targeted killings. Additionally, cases and prisoners can be
transferred to other stations, probably with a view to lessen the threat to
judges, lawyers, witnesses and jail staff. The criminal justice system
in Pakistan is generally perceived to be functioning at less than optimal
level. In this background, the conviction rate is low. It is perhaps because
of this that the Amendment has been made to change the relevant law so as to
make the detention of suspects easier for longer periods, and make more
evidence admissible and, thereby, improve the prosecution and conviction
rate. The threat and seriousness
of the terrorist challenge is accepted by everyone. However, it is at the
same time important to deal with it in ways which respect to the fundamental
rights as much as possible. There are a few things which need to be kept in
mind in this regard. The first, of course, is the principle of narrow
definition. Globally, the tendency has been to define terrorism rather
broadly. It is important to define it in clear, non-ambiguous terms. The second is to provide
for due process to the extent possible and the investigation agency should be
under the burden of proving the need to use special provisions, which should
be subject to judicial scrutiny and not executive scrutiny alone. In the opinion of many, we
have paid the price of being next door to Afghanistan, which was always an
unstable area, and not a country till the 18th Century. The country, in spite
of its name, which many Uzbeks and Tajiks consider a misnomer, is not the
country of Afghans but of Afghans and Turks. These ethnic fault lines have
been highlighted in the recent past, especially in the aftermath of US
presence. Analysts opine that
external factors and internal handling of affairs over the decades have
landed us in a position where we are a frontline state vis-a-vis terrorism,
and consequently, a major sufferer at its hands. In Pakistan, the increase in
terrorism has been remarkably high by all standards. Over the years, around
40, 000 people have been killed fighting it alone. Some areas of the country
are particularly badly-hit and continue to be so, others less so, but the
whole country has faced the problem. There is a universal
consensus that it is time to do something about it. Whether to have a
dialogue or fight? An additional problem is the overall increase in crime
rate in the country, with Karachi perhaps as the epicenter. There is a need to
strengthen the law enforcement agencies, simplify criminal justice system
through giving them greater power, as well as through shortening criminal
justice process, which could curtail certain fundamental rights, including
the due process and fair trial rights, and through giving greater protection
to judges and witnesses, which is a positive step. The debate has been partly
ignited by the media and judicial scrutiny of detention and investigative
processes being practised in Pakistan. With changes in the law, many of those
procedures and processes may fall into the legal domain. This is what the US
and UK have also done. The need to take action
against terrorists and punish them as per law is undeniable, as it is the
state’s duty to protect the people, however, it is possible to take such
legislative, administrative and operational measures that the use is always
within the broader scope of human rights and under judicial scrutiny. The law making should be
transparent and open and any violation of the law by the police should also
be dealt with as per rules. Special laws and procedures should be time bound,
so that once the situation improves; the laws may be either automatically
reviewed or repealed. The writer is a
Lahore-based lawyer and political analyst
The big issue By Masud Alam Eid al Azha is
gone, and with it all the talk of prohibitive prices of bakras; people still
willing to pay insane amounts for a few kilos of meat if it gives them free
publicity on TV or raises their social stature in the mohallah; and of
bleeding heart appeals against a mass-killing tradition that has no
justification in religion, in modern ethos, or in contemporary common sense. It happens, exactly in this
fashion, every year, without fail. Nothing changes, nothing is expected to
change, but that doesn’t stop us from talking. We talk not to change
anything but to contribute to status quo – the position
that we may not have even the most basic of human rights like clean air,
water, and toilets, but it doesn’t matter as long as we have the freedom to
talk, talk endlessly about anything and everything, about democracy,
religion, military hegemony, religion, terrorism, religion … Let me refresh your memory. Just
before Eid we were talking about Gen Kayani’s attempt to retain a foothold
in power corridors after his retirement. This talk originated in news media
and soon had every pundit worth his or her salt commenting on it. Self-styled
political and military analysts bombarded the army chief with critical
recommendations, sermons on history and ethics, pointed witticisms and
outright slapstick. The campaign gathered wind for a week or so – which is
the average age of an issue, any issue, on the minds of Pakistanis – until
it was punctured by the general himself who stepped up to point out that the
media was breaking a basic principle taught in Journalism 101, that of
verifying information before running with it. There was no truth in the premise
on which every media person was passionately commenting. You’d think it
must have been a sobering moment for news media? Not really. The hacks are
used to the situation; doesn’t embarrass them anymore. And what about the
consumers of media? Do they follow these ‘issues’ or do they dictate them
as the media likes to believe? Let’s see, before Gen Kayani we
berated attacks on religious minorities and cried at watching scenes of
carnage outside a church in Peshawer; we were jolted into compassion for
Baluchs when the Awaran quake struck; we were horrified to learn of the gang
rape of a girl child in Lahore … and all this within a period of roughly
one month, and media led the way in making these our national issues. Are these worthy issues? Indeed
they are. Was it good that we made a lot of noise on each of these issues? Of
course it was awfully good. Then what is my problem? It is that we are more
concerned with protest than the realisation of what we are protesting
against. It’s like ticking a list of worthy causes one has raised voice on.
The liberal media person, including the blogger and Facebook user, is as
shifty in their loyalty to a cause as they are committed to every cause. The
result: we keep running from one to the other issue, without seeing the end
of any. Give us an issue and we’ll
talk. We’ll talk, we’ll roar, we’ll cry, we’ll condemn, we’ll
appeal and we’ll demand … and then conveniently forget it and move on to
the next issue. Here is the tough question: Which issue among the four
mentioned above, can you not afford to stop talking about? Compared with all
the issues you have faced in your life and all the issues you are likely to
face, what stands out for you as something that is closest to your heart?
That has to be fixed however dumb your governments are, whatever the level of
incompetence of the officials, and whether or not we live in a democracy? It’s your children. You do not
want them abused or harassed, or bullied. This is one point, and the only
point that connects us all, whether we are rich or poor, highly educated or
illiterate, urban or rural, powerful or powerless, religious or faithless,
smart parents or duds. Children connect us all through their sheer
vulnerability and our absolute power over them. Chief of Army Staff stays another
three years or not does not make any difference to your personal life. A few
more terrorist attacks will not mean anything to you if your near and dear
ones are not affected. Baluchs kill outsiders and are killed and kidnapped by
army is an issue you have always been ambivalent about. But you do strongly
wish to protect your children. There is only one way to protect
YOUR children: have systems in place for the protection of ALL children,
because with kids it’s all or none. Let’s make noise over it for as long
as we have to, despite the big ‘issue’ breaking next week. masud.dar@gmail.com
The politics of CII The Council continues to exist as an ineffective By Waqar Gillani Dismissing DNA test
as primary evidence, setting aside the suggestion for shelter homes for
homeless elders, objecting to the amended laws that protect women’s rights,
and shooting down the proposal of giving strict punishment to those who abuse
or misuse the most sensitive (read controversial) blasphemy law by lodging
false reports to settle scores. These are some of the most striking examples
of how Pakistan’s Council of Islamic Ideology (CII) is moving forward in
recent months in its advisory capacity. The Council, judging by its
existing structure, comprises mostly politically-appointed clerics. There are
exceptions, too. One of the recently-appointed members — Maulana Tahir
Mahmood Ashrafi — is known as the only voice of dissent against the
afore-mentioned decisions. Chairman CII, Maulana
Mohammad Khan Sherani, is a veteran member of the Jamiat Ulema-e-Islam Fazlur
Rehman group (JUI-F), appointed to the seat allegedly as political bribe in a
coalition government when Asif Zardari was the president of the country. Clinching the CII
chairmanship was a JUI-F dream. During Gen (r) Pervez Musharraf’s regime
the JUI-F tried its best to get the slot as a political bargain but failed.
This time, the JUI-F is supporting the ruling PML-N with its less than 10
seats in the National Assembly following a secret commitment from Nawaz
Sharif that they shall be allowed to continue with the CII office. Unfortunately, both PPP and
the PML-N that have ruled the country thrice each since 1988 have been taking
an opportunist position on the issue of the CII. These parties have been
using it as a political tool for gaining power in the parliament while the
religious parties have been viewing this office as a tool to appease their
constituency. The CII was established as
an advisory council in 1962 under Article 199 of the Constitution of the
Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1962. Later, the advisory council was
re-designated as the Council of Islamic Ideology in Article 228 of the 1973
Constitution with its functions given in Article 230, followed by the Rules
of Procedure (Article 231). The Council comprises a
minimum of eight and a maximum of 20 members, including the chairman,
representing various schools of thought, with at least two of the members to
be sitting or retired judges of the Supreme/High Court and one member to be a
woman and at least four members to be scholars who have done research in
Islam or given instruction for at least 15 years. Article 230 of the
Constitution clearly reads that the “CII shall submit its final report
within seven years of its appointment and shall submit an annual interim
report. The report, whether interim or final, shall be laid for discussion
before both the houses and each provincial assembly within six months of its
receipt. And, the parliament, after considering the report, shall enact laws
in respect thereof within a period of two years of the final report.” The Council took about 23
years to submit the report to the parliament. Ironically, the final report,
which was submitted in 1996, has not been brought on the floor of the house
even after 17 years. The Council, which represents different schools of
thought and sects, surprisingly, has also failed to draw the basic principles
of guidelines to date, a mandatory role of the Council for consensus and
guiding the government on legal affairs. Referring to the
above-mentioned final report, some experts say, the Council stands abolished
constitutionally after completing its mandate in 1996, which was entrusted to
it in 1973. These attempts were taken in 1997 during Nawaz Sharif’s second
regime; during the rule of former military dictator Pervez Musharraf; and in
2010 when the PPP was in power. However, the attempts never
materialised due to obvious political compulsions. There have been suggestions
that there should be a constitutional amendment to do away with the Council
because of its ineffectiveness and the existence of the Federal Shariat
Court, and also to save any additional costs of maintaining a redundant body.
The suggestions include
that some of the functions of the Federal Shariat Court and the Council be
clubbed. The present staff recruited by the Council may be absorbed in the
Federal Shariat Court and those working in the Council on deputation may be
sent back to their parent departments. The biggest criticism on
the CII is its conventional and political approach. In one of its recent
shocking declarations, an absolute majority of the Council rejected DNA
evidence as conclusive proof in rape cases. Ironically, this
declaration against the scientifically-advanced and universally-accepted
methodology is contradictory to a decision ordained by the former Judge of
Federal Shariat Court, Syed Afzal Haider, who has termed it as acceptable
evidence. In the debate on amendment
in the blasphemy law and its misuse, the Council dismissed strict action
against those who misuse the name of the Prophet Mohammad (peace be upon him)
to settle their scores by lodging false blasphemy cases. One of the sitting members
of the CII, former Justice Nazir Akhtar of High Court is supposed to have
said in 2000 that anybody accused of blasphemy should be killed on the spot
by Muslims as part of their religious obligation without caring for legal
proceedings meant for a blasphemy accused. The hardline approach and
the orthodoxy of the Council coupled with its failure to respond to the needs
of the time and accept the realities of the modern world is a negation of
‘Ijtehad’ (a fresh thinking and interpretation). Moderate and progressive
sections of civil society have been demanding abolition of the CII for the
past many years. They say the CII has increasingly become an assembly of
hardliners who reject reason and follow the conventional path instead of
prompting a new discourse. Either the CII be abolished
or its idea re-visited to bring it out of its archaic thinking. vaqargillani@gmail.com
Sceptic’s Diary We live by symbols,
wrote Justice Felix Frankfurter of the Supreme Court of the United States.
Frankfurter had the flag of his country in mind. But it is hard to see how
courage and its symbols — for a nation at war and in search of peace —
are any less important. The first realisation has
to be that we are at war; there are no two ways about it. This war has cost
us thousands of lives, limbs and most importantly our dreams. It has
fundamentally changed what our home represents. Therefore, celebration of
every symbol of our courage is important. Malala Yousufzai is one
such symbol. That alone is reason to celebrate her. But since one of the
first casualties of systematic terror is sensitivity and empathy for human
suffering, there is no shortage of Malala’s detractors. There are many
arguments aimed at discrediting what the intrepid mind and person of Malala
has achieved but one that I hear most often asks “why celebrate her and not
the others?”. This question misses the
point completely. Celebrating Malala is not an insult to the suffering or
courage of others but in fact supplements the collective tribute deserved by
all those standing up to or suffering because of terror. Malala represents
what we must cherish in this war and our search for peace — she sums up the
innocence being targeted, she represents an acknowledgement of a problem, the
courage to speak out against it, the passion that defies the temptation to
give up on our dreams, and to do all this and more in a way that preserves a
society that wants to learn from and teach its children. Rosa Parks was not the only
American woman who stood up against segregation on the basis of race. And yet
she is remembered today as its most enduring symbol. Why? Not because her
story trumps others but because of her will that stood out in that moment in
time to push ahead for rights of others. Why does she inspire more than
others today and why do American Presidents mention her in their speeches? We
might never know but people studying management and leadership do tell us
that a complex set of factors shapes how and why some people inspire more
than others. It is clear, however, that
inspirational people must themselves be seen to be leading by example or they
must set in motion a chain of events that bear their names. This does not
mean the struggle of others is any less worthy but it does mean that we need
symbols to celebrate. And that symbol celebrates all efforts. We celebrate Malala today
not just as an individual. Her personal story indeed matters a lot and
deserves celebration — but just like many others. We celebrate Malala
because she represents something that inspires us. And when she inspires us,
she carries within her spirit and in her words the courage of all those like
her. And if you disagree with
her power as a symbol then all you need to do is ask the TTP why they wanted
to target her? Why does TTP write a letter to Malala and not others? Because
our enemies realise what we are ignoring — we live by symbols. Conspiracy theories in
Pakistan are a direct result of the way we teach our school children. As I
wrote in this space earlier, if we always represent Muslims as benign,
peace-loving and magnanimous rulers or people then this will lead to
delusions. If we never confront the possibility that people, regardless of
religion and sometimes because of distorted interpretations of religion, can
resort to violence seeking naked power then no one should be surprised by
conspiracy theories. The ideology of Pakistan
has always been represented to be under threat. Again, notice the importance
of a symbol and how the state seeks to protect it — by hook or by crook,
often both together in all ways ghastly. We see ourselves as a teenager and
the world is against us, it wants to stop us from realising our potential.
The irony is that in this delusional space of mind, we imperil our own
teenagers the most. Malala is only one such teenager. And if someone has an
issue with celebrating her story alone then I invite them to represent what
this country needs in ways more effective than Malala. Malala and children like
her are asking questions of us that we do not want to confront. She and
others like her represent what we have conveniently ignored — that there is
no great foreign conspiracy, that private organisations in this country
harbour, train and brainwash militants who are opposed to everything that
needs protection. Will Malala be the saviour
that we need? Of course not. Because our saviours come in sherwanis, on
horses or sporting beards. They almost always challenge non-Muslims. But just
like passionate constitutional lawyers argue over sustainable interpretations
of words in the constitution, we need to start debating over interpretations
of religion. Our enemies are within us. Malala confronts this. If we love our
children, we must do so as well. I hope we remember that
while this eid is a time of sacrifice, we will not continue sacrificing our
common sense and fellow citizens to people who claim to be God. The writer is a practicing
lawyer. He can be reached at wmir.rma@gmail.com or on Twitter@wordoflaw
Timber rush Landslides and tree
stumps are two constants on 45-kilometre-long picturesque road that leads to
Babusar top from Karakoram Highway (KKH) in Diamer district of
Gilgit-Baltistan region. There are a few scattered villages in the valleys
along the road. This area was once thickly
forested but is now almost tree-less. “We call it Thak valley. Once it was
known for its forests. Today one is unlikely to find trees to build a house
with,” says Ghulam Nabi Raikoti, an environmentalist and owner of a tour
company from Fairy Meadows. Fairy Meadows is one of the
few areas in Diamer district where forests are protected by the local
communities. Illegal tree cutting and
timber smuggling has been rampant in Diamer district since the 1990s which
comprises more than 90 per cent of total forests in the Gilgit-Baltistan
region. The situation, however, became worse after the controversial timber
movement policy for Diamer district was introduced by former prime minister
(PM), Raja Pervaiz Ashraf, just a day before his term expired in March this
year. Under the policy, the PM,
who was also chairperson of Gilgit-Baltistan Council, allowed the
transportation of four million cubic feet (cft) of timber from Diamer to
other parts of the country. In addition to the legally-cut 2.0 million cft of
timber, which locals claimed had begun to decay, the policy also stated that
around 1.9 million cft of illegally-cut timber could be traded after
contractors pay a fine that varies, depending on the type of trees. The policy was meant to
dispose off the illegal timber which was cut at least two years before the
policy was promulgated. But it resulted in felling of thousands of fresh
trees in the district. Mian Nawaz Sharif’s government withdrew the policy
on July 5, 2013 but the locals say the action came late. “At least 200,000 trees
were cut in Thor and Batoga valleys in Diamer from February to July,” Khan
Muhammad Qureshi, 26, an activist from Diamer who now lives in Islamabad,
tells TNS. His village is situated
only four kilometres away from Babusar pass. “Local influentials,
communities, politicians and forest officials are involved in the illegal
trade. In most of the cases, timber mafia pays only Rs25 to Rs50 per cft to
the local community,” he says. “They do not put a date
on the notification. Many contractors have passed away but the forest
department officials have been using their names to cut trees in the
region,” he says, adding, instances of flood and landslides have increased
manifold in Diamer district in the last decade or so. “Rain patterns have
changed and the climate has become warm.” Zamurrad Khan, divisional
Forest officer Darel and Tangir refutes these allegations. He says the policy
in 2013 allowed trade of the trees cut over the last many years. “It is not
true 200,000 fresh trees were cut in the last few months. Between March and
July, only 426,000 cft of timber from this division was transported down
country. The forest department lacks resources and human resource to look
after the forests in Diamer. I have only six forest guards for three ranges.
Only one range, Khamber, is situated over a 400-square-kilometre area,” he
says. Further, he adds, “when
people engage in illegal timber cutting, they depute two to three guards with
AK-47 while our guards have nothing. How can they stop them?” An official report of the
Forest, Wildlife and Environment of G-B reveals that forest officials have
shown 2.0 million cft of illegal timber trade in Diamer which is incorrect.
Zamurrad Khan was head of the team mentioned in the report. The volume of timber trade
mentioned in the policy has never been verified by a third party. It was
given by the officials of the forest departments on ground. The cutting of fresh trees
started a few months before the promulgation of policy in March this year
because the timber mafia was informed in advance,” a senior official at the
Forests, Wildlife and Environment Department tells TNS on condition of
anonymity. He suggests, “Let this timber decay once and for all. It would
be a loss of a few billion rupees but it would save our forests in Diamer. We
need to give lessons to timber mafia that illegally-cut timber would not be
accepted at all.” On May 2, 2013, conservator
of parks and wildlife Gilgit-Baltistan wrote a letter to the secretary
Forests, Wildlife, and Environment Department of the region mentioning
“mega-corruption and misappropriation” around timber disposal policy 2013
— but no action was taken. Diamer is a unique case in
Gilgit-Baltistan region as far as management of forests is concerned. Almost
all forests in the district are private. The government of Pakistan has
accepted the private ownership of forests under the Accession Deed of Diamer
district in1952. The government of Pakistan first introduced rules for
management of private forests in Diamer in 1958 by allowing the removal of
dead, dying, damaged and over mature trees. In 1967 all the contracts were
suspended for three years after excessive damage to the forests. Gilgit
Private Forest Regulation was promulgated in 1970. Rules under this regulation
provide access to forest resources for communities residing in the vicinity
of the forest; these rights include the free grant of trees, grazing and
collection of dead/dry trees. Grazing is allowed only in those areas that are
not closed for regeneration. The local communities have ownership of the
private forests in Darel, Tangir and Chilas but their management is the
responsibility of the forest department. For various reasons this
arrangement has failed to ensure sustainable management of these forests.
Regeneration of the felled areas had been left to the felling contractors who
never bothered about it. The communities hardly ever pressurise contractors
for regeneration mainly because influential contractors of Diamer sub-lease
the contracts for huge profits. Officially, Pakistan put a
ban on commercial logging in 1993 after the devastating floods in 1992. It
was meant to check deforestation and watershed degradation. But since then
the government has several times altered policies to dispose off legal and
illegal timber from the district — by stating “relaxation shall be the
last opportunity where after it shall not apply again anywhere”. After every five years or
so, the government issues policy directives, providing opportunity to timber
mafia to dispose off the timber it collects in Diamer. During the last
decade, three such directives were issued — in 2002, 2008 and 2013. “It is literally
encouraging timber mafia to cut trees for years, store them near KKH and wait
for a few years for the new policy to dispose it off. This business is like
drugs business. The ratio of profit is several hundred times of the actual
investment,” says Khan Muhammad Qureishi, an activist from Diamir who now
lives in Islamabad. Khadim Hussain Saleem,
secretary Forest, Wildlife and Environment GB says most of the timber
mentioned in the policy is old timber. “Some of the timber is as old as
15-years. I do not think fresh trees are cut. We suspended 10 officials of
the forest department in Diamer two weeks ago after getting complaints about
their inefficiency,” he says.
|
|
