Opposing the prime minister
May 30th, 2012
It was, perhaps, inevitable that the repercussions of the Supreme Court’s guilty verdict on Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gilani’s contempt case would continue to reverberate throughout the current government’s remaining term. The verdict and the slim prospect it brought of cutting short the government’s rule, was far too tempting for the opposition parties. And so, to no one’s surprise, the PML-N and the PTI have filed petitions in the Supreme Court challenging National Assembly Speaker Fehmida Mirza’s decision not to send a reference against the prime minister to the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP). Just because this move was expected, however, does not make it correct. The Supreme Court verdict against the prime minister did not explicitly remove him from power and it did not order the speaker to file a reference against him; it merely suggested those actions as possibilities. Mirza’s actions were entirely in accordance with both the law and the verdict which is why, in the interests of democracy, the matter should now be left alone.
The biggest problem with the PML-N and the PTI’s petitions is that they are seeking to have a purely legislative matter settled by the courts. The question of whether the speaker made the correct decision should be decided by parliament and not through litigation. The precedent set by these petitions is likely to set back the cause of civilian supremacy since every decision and action of parliament will now likely be dragged through the courts. There are only two ways that Gilani can be legally disqualified: either through a no-confidence motion or by a ruling of the ECP. Since both these options are no longer open to them, the opposition parties have taken the unprecedented move of having the Supreme Court act as the final arbiter on the actions of the speaker.
The Supreme Court itself has now become such an important political player that there is no way of knowing if it will accept the petition. However, the prudent move would be to reject it under Article 69 of the Constitution, which states that no outside institution can guide the speaker in his or her role as the custodian of the National Assembly. By ignoring that clause of the Constitution, the opposition parties have made clear that they are putting their own narrow interests ahead of the law of the land.
Showing mercy for Sarabjit Singh
May 30th, 2012
The counsel for jailed Indian national, Sarabjit Singh, says some light has shone in through the bars of his death row cell at Kot Lakhpat Jail in Lahore, following the release of Dr Khalil Chishty, the virologist held in India for almost two decades. Sarabjit, who filed his fifth mercy petition to the President of Pakistan, is hoping that this time around it will be accepted. The petition is backed by the signatures of over 100,000 Indian citizens. It also contains letters written to President Asif Ali Zardari by the chief cleric of Delhi’s Jamia Masjid and the caretaker of the shrine of the revered sufi saint Moinuddin Chishty.
Certainly, mercy needs to be shown and Sarabjit — who has already served 22 years in Pakistani jails — should be permitted to return home. Singh was arrested in 1990 in connection with a series of bomb blasts that went off in various cities in Punjab, following which he was convicted and condemned to the gallows. He was supposed to be hanged on April 1, 2008, but the decision was stayed following an outcry in India, appeals from the Indian government and orders from Islamabad to put off the sentence. Sarabjit has served a period longer than a life term in jail. In the wake of Dr Chishty’s release following a request by President Zardari, reciprocal action needs to be taken by Pakistan. The move can help bring people of both countries closer.
There are also other reasons why Sarabjit should be released. A question over identity has surfaced previously in the case, with Indian activists stating that the unfortunate Sarabjit was actually mistaken for a man called Manjeet Singh, who actually carried out the bombings. Sarabjit’s counsel insists that there is irrefutable proof that he was in India when the bombings occurred, while the prisoner’s sister, Dalbir Kaur, is also stated to have produced evidence of his innocence. Given the evidence and on the simple basis of humanity, Sarabjit must be freed. Let us hope this happens as soon as possible.
Language of hate
May 30th, 2012
Due to the tense relations between India and Pakistan, peace is still relatively elusive in South Asia. It is not a mean feat to put a complete end to more than six decades of territorial disputes, arms race, cross-border terrorism and proxy wars but fortunately it is not entirely impossible either.
A Pakistani media delegation recently visited Mumbai and asked for an end to the ‘language of hate’ used by the media on both sides of the border. If the media in Pakistan and India indeed follows through with this policy, it would go a long way in changing perceptions amongst the people about each other’s countries. At a time when both the governments are trying to liberalise the visa regimes and are opening trade, it is good to see that the media is also playing its part in facilitating the peace process. Using the right discourse, recontextualising the issues and creating awareness through campaigns, joint productions and people-to-people contact, is making it possible to spread the message of peace and tolerance. While the media devises a strategy to stop using the language of hate, our curriculum needs to change as well. The kind of abhorrent language used to describe India and its people in our textbooks must be reformed. Distortion of historical facts is something we can do without. Our children should be taught the truth.
Pakistan’s obsession with India is tearing apart the basic fabric of the former’s society, leading to a self-destructive phase. The enmity between the two neighbours still battling demons from their past, is hurting the people of both nations. Both countries are wasting resources in their arms race at the cost of their impoverished millions. It would not be wrong to say that with the exception of the right wing media and some hawkish elements, most people in the region would like to see a normalisation of relations between India and Pakistan. The people of both countries ought to be allowed to live in peace.