Denial of human rights

IT was a year that can be neither condemned wholesale nor praised outright where human rights were concerned. While some improvement was seen in 2008, the balance tilted largely in favour of the unacceptable. True, some progress was made year-on-year, but it should be considered that a military dictator called the shots in 2007. It stood to reason that the outlook of elected politicians would be less draconian than that of a general who usurped power through a military coup. But what was actually achieved in 2008 fell far short of the enviable. One possible reason was that the new government fell victim to stasis early on in its tenure. It remained locked in political intrigue and failed to address the concerns of the people. Then there were the problems it inherited: rampant militancy, worsening law and order, economic instability, soaring inflation and growing underemployment. In short, the government couldn’t cope and the need to uphold human rights fell by the wayside for the most part.

First the positives, for the list is short. Protest was permitted, as one would expect in a democracy. There were no direct attempts to silence the media and freedom of expression, which had been muffled by the 2007 emergency, was allowed freer rein. Yet the government could not protect journalists from murderous non-state actors, and there were accusations too of officials harassing media persons. In a welcome move, the government admitted that the list of the ‘disappeared’ still ran to more than 1,000 persons. But as the latest World Report published by Human Rights Watch points out, “negligible progress [was made] in resolving cases and recovering victims”.

Human Rights Watch also questions the independence of the judiciary in Pakistan, which by extension has a bearing on access to justice, a basic right. There was no let-up in 2008 in violence against women and young girls. In a shameful move, a senator who had justified honour killings and a legislator who stood accused of presiding over a jirga that ordered the handing over of five girls to settle a dispute “were elevated to Pakistan’s cabinet by President Zardari”. Meanwhile, the state stood helpless as militants in

Swat and the tribal areas stripped women of fundamental rights, and denied both boys and girls the right to an education of their own choice. Military operations and US strikes in the tribal belt claimed civilian lives and resulted in the mass displacement of residents. Discriminatory laws remained on the books and religious minorities continued to be targeted with impunity. Reports of torture by security agencies remained all too routine. Promises were made that death sentences would be commuted to life imprisonment but nothing came of that pledge. Clearly, 2008 was not a banner year for human rights in Pakistan.


AS the clock winds down on the Bush administration, allies have begun to publicly speak about deficiencies in the US campaign to fight the rise of terrorism and militancy. The latest critique has come from David Miliband, the UK foreign secretary, who has written in the Guardian that, “The idea of a ‘war on terror’ gave the impression of a unified, transnational enemy, embodied in the figure of Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda. The reality is that the motivations and identities of terrorist groups are disparate.” But not only has the West wrongly identified the enemy, it has also got the strategy to fight it wrong so far. Quoting Gen Petraeus, Mr Miliband argues that those fighting terror cannot “kill their way out of the problems”. We could not agree more. Nowhere is the failure more evident than in this part of the world. Whatever the deficiencies of the US-led military campaign in Afghanistan, the country is on the edge of a precipice because of the failure of the promised nation-building process. Blaming Pakistan for not doing more to help cannot hide the fact that the original error was not of our making.

Yet, we must be careful to not sound like apologists when reviewing the Pakistani state’s response to the terrorism threat, be it on the Pak-Afghan border, within Pakistan or even India. Consider the Mumbai attacks and Ajmal Kasab. No state can be expected to guarantee that some of its citizens won’t go astray — that would make redundant law enforcement and the judicial process — but can any honest assessment of Pakistan’s attempts to shut down terrorism networks claim we have done anything more than the bare minimum? We have not. Yet, as Mr Miliband has pointed out, the issue today is to understand how terrorism and militancy can be fought most effectively. This clearly requires some pragmatism, something the UK foreign secretary has spelled out in the case of Pakistan: “Resolution of the dispute over Kashmir would help deny extremists in the region one of their main calls to arms, and allow Pakistani authorities to focus more effectively on tackling the threat on their western borders.” Old rivalries, be they between Pakistan and India or Afghanistan and Pakistan, are being fought with new forms of terrorism and militancy in the region. Ignoring the cause of violence will ensure no one wins in the long term.


IN an age where a nation stands besieged by human bombs, street crimes, fanaticism, to name just a few of its myriad hazards, it is indeed abominable that victims fall by the wayside as mere statistics. The primary reason appears to be that the evidence and the crime scene remain perishable. As pointed out in a report carried by this newspaper, the country’s police have a pathetic record of managing crime scenes — the foundation of any investigation. The report maintains that the pattern is unaffected by the fact that numerous police officers have undergone foreign training for crime scene supervision. National crime annals are replete with countless, and historic, incidents which prove that a country gripped by bloodshed and mayhem continues to flounder in the first step towards not only accountability and justice but also deterrence. Take the case of the Liaquat Bagh crime scene — where Benazir Bhutto was killed along with numerous others — that was hosed down shortly after the catastrophe.

Given the fraught times we live in, it is tragic that not a single university in the country offers a degree in forensics studies. Also, there is an absence of an inventory of evidence. Meanwhile, evidence itself is not the property of a particular authority and is randomly taken away by the agencies. We can hardly wait for more bloodbaths to teach us lessons that should have been long learnt. Other than revamping the police training curriculum, it is imperative that immediate steps are taken to strengthen the presently inadequate apparatus. For instance, the Sindh Forensics Science Laboratory is the sole facility with one chemical laboratory for medico-legal investigations in the entire province and not a single forensics service exists in Balochistan. Not only are these home to antiquated machinery, there are few to man them and their inquiries are often mired in controversy — underpaid personnel are bribed to produce tampered results. The need for airtight investigation is the greatest call of our times and the home department must implement instant measures to monitor corruption and overhaul present institutions whereby sanctity of evidence becomes intrinsic to our police culture.


THE last six months of the emergency regime had been a disaster as far as the economy of the country is concerned. One sign of the economy coming to a near standstill is the extremely poor implementation of the Annual

Development Programme which stands at a mere 18 per cent halfway through the financial year, as revealed by the finance minister of the newly formed Awami League government.

Non-performing and non-implementable ADPs are nothing new for Bangladesh. Every government, each year unveils a massive ADP, most of which never see the light of day and remain what they are — basically pieces of paper bound up in files of the finance and planning ministry. This year things are even worse because the emergency had made the entire government machinery and bureaucracy far too cumbersome and unresponsive to be anything other than ‘worst’. So, the AL government has to firstly sort out the entire ‘machinery’ before even thinking about the ADPs and their implementation.

There is no gainsaying the fact that government spending in the form of ADPs has a considerable impact on the economy because they generate a huge number of economic activities…. These large numbers of people then spend the money they earn in ‘consumption’ of goods and services and they also save some of their earnings. The entire process of government spending thus ‘fuels’ the economy. If that process is disrupted, the economy is too and this is particularly applicable to countries … like Bangladesh.

Typically, governments in developing economics increase their spending through systems such as ADPs and ensure that such programmes are implemented particularly during ‘times of trouble’ such as we are facing now because of various reasons. This is to ensure that the engine of economy keeps functioning, that people find employment and that people have money to spend on goods and services which many other people provide. The prime minister has, therefore, appropriately zoomed in on the ADP and has demanded maximum implementation, that is, as far as possible within the remaining six months or so of the current financial year.

In implementing the ADPs, the government however, has to decide on the priorities correctly. Obviously, infrastructure development is important but equally important is the development of all those things which go to support agriculture…. So, a balance between agricultural development and infrastructural development has to be made. — (Jan 15)


THE Quran is deeply concerned about liberating human beings from every kind of bondage.

Recognising the human tendency toward dictatorship and despotism, the Quran says with clarity and emphasis in Surah 3: 79: “It is not conceivable that a human being unto whom God had granted revelation, and a sound judgment, and prophethood, should thereafter have said unto people, ‘Worship me beside God’; but rather (did he exhort them), ‘Become men of God by spreading the knowledge of the divine writ, and by your own deep study (thereof).’”

The institution of human slavery is, of course, extremely important in the context of human freedom. Slavery was widely prevalent in the Arab world at the time of the advent of Islam and the Arab economy was based on it. Not only did the Quran insist that slaves be treated in a just and humane way, it continually urged the freeing of slaves. By laying down, in Surah 47:4 that prisoners of war were to be set free, “either by an act of grace or against ransom,” the Quran virtually abolished slavery since the majority of slaves — both men and women — were prisoners of war. Because the Quran does not state explicitly that slavery is abolished, it does not follow that it is to be continued, particularly in view of the numerous ways in which the Quran seeks to eliminate this absolute evil. A book which does not give a king or a prophet the right to command absolute obedience from other human beings could not possibly sanction slavery in any sense of the word. The greatest guarantee of personal freedom for a Muslim lies in the Quranic decree that no one other than God can limit human freedom and in the statement that “Judgment (as to what is right and what is wrong) rests with God alone” (12: 40) . As pointed out by an eminent Pakistani jurist, Khalid Ishaque, “The Quran gives to responsible dissent the status of a fundamental right. In exercise of their powers, therefore, neither the legislature nor the executive can demand unquestioning obedience... The Prophet (PBUH), even though he was the recipient of divine revelation, was required to consult Muslims in public affairs. Allah addressing the Prophet says: “...and consult with them upon the conduct of affairs. And... when thou art resolved, then put thy trust in Allah.”

Since the principle of mutual consultation, shura, is binding, it is a Muslim’s fundamental right, as well as responsibility, to participate in as many aspects of community life as possible. The Quranic proclamation in Surah 2:256, “There shall be no coercion in matters of faith”, guarantees freedom of religion and worship. This means that, according to the Quran, non-Muslims living in Muslim territories have the freedom to follow their own faith and traditions without fear or harassment.

A number of Quranic passages state clearly that the responsibility of the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) is to communicate the message of God and not to compel anyone to believe. The right to exercise free choice in matters of belief is unambiguously endorsed by the Quran, which also states clearly that God will judge human beings not on the basis of what they profess but on the basis of their belief and righteous conduct, as indicated in Surah 2:62 which states: “Verily, those who have attained faith (in this divine writ) as well as those who follow the Jewish faith and the Christian, and the Sabian — all who believe in God and the Last Day and do righteous deeds — shall have their reward with their Sustainer: and no fear need they have, and neither shall they grieve.”

The Quran recognises the right to religious freedom not only in the case of other believers in God, but also in the case of non-believers in God (if they are not aggressing against Muslims). The right to freedom includes the right to be free to tell the truth. The Quranic term for truth is “Haq” which is also one of God’s most important attributes.

Standing up for the truth is a right and a responsibility which a Muslim may not disclaim even in the face of the greatest danger or difficulty (Surah 4:135). While the Quran commands the believers to testify to the truth, it also instructs society not to harm persons so testifying (Surah 2:282).

The writer is a scholar of Islam and Iqbal, teaching at the University of Louisville, US.

rshass01@gwise.louisville.edu


FRESH efforts to stave off recession were unveiled this week when the UK cabinet agreed to release £20bn to ease Britain’s frozen credit lines. At the same time, Ben Bernanke, the US Federal Reserve chairman, used a speech in London to warn that not enough was being done to ease global problems.

The two moves underline the extent to which policy makers on either side of the Atlantic recognise that banks have been saved from collapse but have not been restored to proper functioning.

Bernanke, in London for talks with UK premier Gordon Brown, said American banks may need a further injection of capital. The fiscal package planned by incoming president Barack Obama would provide a “significant boost” to the US economy but the government had to do more to stabilise the financial system. “Fiscal actions are unlikely to promote a lasting recovery unless they are accompanied by strong measures to further stabilise and strengthen the financial system.”

In an important moment for Brown on the world stage, the German cabinet has backed a £50bn fiscal expansion package, weeks after the British prime minister urged a united effort across major economies. The German move deprives UK Opposition Conservative leader David Cameron of a potential ally in his argument that the solution to the crisis lies in monetary rather than fiscal solutions.

Cameron is preparing to denounce the Brown administration’s latest move, the credit guarantee scheme. Lord Mandelson, the business secretary, is proposing £10bn of government guarantees for viable small and medium-sized enterprises, and has reached an agreement with the banks that the £10bn — mainly to provide working capital — will unlock another £10bn of bank credit for larger and riskier businesses. The government credit will be available to firms with up to £500m in annual turnover.

Officials said the banks have given undertakings that they will be able to expand credit as a result of the government’s intervention. Typically defaults can run at 5-10 per cent, so the scheme could cost government up to £1bn. The scheme has been under negotiation for weeks with Lady Vadera, the business minister, leading talks with the banks. The main extra element of the scheme will focus on providing working capital, but there will also be an expansion of the loan guarantee scheme, export credit guarantees and announcements on credit insurance.

A further announcement, possibly next week, will be made by the Treasury on expanding the mortgage markets and providing loans to large businesses.

Mandelson said the plans would be “really effective” and target “genuine business needs”.The Conservatives want a “bigger, bolder, simpler” £50bn scheme to get credit flowing to all businesses. They insist their scheme would be self-financing, and claim ministers have exaggerated the cost of it for political reasons.

Bernanke, speaking at the London School of Economics, painted a gloomy picture for 2009, admitting that even with concerted action from the White House and the Fed, there would be little improvement in the economy until later this year. Asked when he expected to see an end to the spate of job losses in the US, with more than 500,000 workers laid off in December, he said he hoped that by “late in 2009” it would be possible to put “a stop to the bleeding”.

Hank Paulson, the outgoing US treasury secretary, has already injected around $250bn into America’s financial institutions, but the Fed chairman said with asset prices still falling and billions of dollars of toxic securities stuck on banks’ balance sheets, “more capital injections and guarantees may become necessary”.

Options included the US treasury buying toxic assets, or separating them off into a “bad bank”.

Bernanke may be seeking to influence Obama’s economic advisers about how to deploy the next $350bn of the rescue fund approved in October. Democrats have advocated aid to homeowners, but the Fed chief’s comments suggest he is more concerned about the supply of credit to companies and households.

He said the Fed still had plenty of ammunition available and would act “aggressively” to promote a recovery.

Bernanke’s call for more support for the banks came as the World Economic Forum singled out the impact of bailouts on governments’ deteriorating finances as the biggest risk to the world economy in 2009.

— The Guardian, London

__________________
Regards,
P.R.