Dated: 1st Feb 2012
Drugs that kill
WHAT had started out as a case of negligence on the part of a few individuals assigned to select and supply drugs to the Punjab Institute of Cardiology in Lahore has turned into a tragic exposé of malaise that implicates more than one administration and government in the country. The situation reads like a dark saga of a system that most knew to be ailing but which parties with vested interests had still wanted to perpetuate. Now, with the rising death toll of PIC patients, apparently from the use of contaminated drugs, the search for a new system has been given greater impetus by a flurry of news reports. Doctors have voiced a very reasonable demand about replacing bureaucrats with experts as drug monitors. There are calls for completing devolution from the centre to the province under the 18th Amendment. The Punjab and federal governments have been held guilty of adding to the panic, with a somewhat uncertain media groping in the dark as it comes up with one horrifying story after another. In part, this has been the outcome of a general lack of information among the sources the media taps.
As patients are scared away from public-sector hospitals, pharmacies from all over Pakistan are reporting a huge switch from locally produced medicines to more costly — and reliable — foreign substitutes. The people fear that the supply of medicines may not have been limited to the PIC and they can hardly be faulted for thinking so given the absence of a clear and timely explanation based on the frank sharing of facts. For instance, a certain percentage of the revenues earned by pharmaceutical companies is supposed to be spent on research and quality control. There is no discussion on how much is collected under this head and how much of the amount is spent, especially when Pakistan continues to be dependent on laboratories abroad for tests on medicines. This requires more than a simple explanation.
Other aspects too must be given consideration. Of these, the completion of the devolution scheme tops the list, although the argument that the country cannot do without a centralised body to monitor drugs is a valid one. At the moment, no one is
sure about the validity of the Drugs Act of 1976 or about the Drug Control Authority as it existed under federal control.
Building alternative watchdogs is something the squabbling provincial legislators would be better off spending their energies on. There is plenty to do and plenty to say to make the current debate more meaningful than it has been so far.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Syrian Gridlock
A NEGOTIATED settlement to the Syrian crisis seems unlikely, especially because both President Bashar Al Assad and the mainstream opposition have rejected talks. Since the uprising began in March last, China and Russia have blocked all attempts by the other UN Security Council members to have a resolution passed against the Syrian regime. On Sunday, Russia again opposed the ‘existing’ text of the resolution, as US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said the UN must act to end Mr Assad’s “violent and brutal attacks” on the demonstrators. The situation has now become grimmer: the Arab League has suspended the activities of its observer mission, 80 people were killed on Sunday alone, and the Assad regime seems in no mood to end the crackdown which, according to reports, has so far led to 5,500 deaths.
The Syrian National Council and the Syrian National Coordinating Committee for Democratic Change have both rejected talks.
While the former said President Assad’s resignation was a precondition for any negotiated transition to democracy, the latter asserted that talks were “inconceivable” because of “growing violence and killings”. Mr Assad has also rejected the Arab League plan, which calls upon him to hand over power to his deputy. This marks the Syrian strongman’s total regional and international isolation. It remains to be seen whether Moscow or Beijing will veto a new West-moved resolution. But even if the UNSC does manage to pass a strong resolution slapping sanctions on Syria, it is unlikely to lead to a regime change in Damascus. Apparently, Mr Assad still commands the loyalty of a majority of the armed forces, as indicated by the execution last week of Col Hussein Harmush, who defected to the protesters’ side and founded the rebel group. A UNSC resolution on paper will have little effect on the Baathist regime, no matter how strong the sanctions. The kind of defections that took place in the Libyan armed forces is not yet visible in Syria, and that only means that, barring some unexpected development, the Syrian people will continue to suffer at the hands of a regime they never voted to power.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Blasphemy laws
T
HE list of those charged or accused under the country’s questionable blasphemy laws — that too on the flimsiest of pretexts — is far too long. Soofi Mohammad Ishaq, sentenced to death by a judge in Jhelum on Monday in a blasphemy case, is another addition to this unenviable list. As reported, Mr Ishaq, a cleric settled in the US, returned to Talagang, Punjab in 2009. The custodian of a shrine, he received a rousing reception from his followers. However, some people apparently felt that his disciples were overzealous in their adulation and considered ‘bowing’ before the cleric ‘blasphemous’. At this point, we cannot but wonder whether the accusation of blasphemy was driven by ulterior motives, as is usually the case.
Reportedly, the man who made the complaint against Mr Ishaq was unhappy with the fact that he had been granted custodianship of the shrine. The background of this case is suspect. What is also cause for concern is that the judge who first heard the case in Chakwal felt he could not announce the verdict due to ‘security risks’, hence the case was transferred to Jhelum. The matter must be thoroughly probed.
Along with their misuse as a weapon against minorities, the blasphemy laws are used by Muslims against Muslims to settle personal scores or grab property. With growing polarisation in society, accusations of blasphemy are also being made to persecute followers of ‘rival’ schools of thought within Islam. Criticism of these laws, even mere talk of reforming them let alone their repeal, invites emotional responses, violence or even death. Not only do we oppose the death penalty, we also feel that laws such as these — which are open to abuse and have brought much opprobrium to Pakistan domestically as well as internationally — at the least need to have iron-clad legal provisos that prevent their misuse.
------------------------------------------------------