Kashmir warning

THE warning by Mirwaiz Umar Farooq that the Muslim youth of the disputed state of Jammu and Kashmir could be “forced to resort again to arms” should be heeded by New Delhi. Mr Farooq is a top separatist leader of the All Parties Hurriyat Conference (APHC) and is the spiritual leader of Muslims in Kashmir — as such his words carry much weight in the context of peaceful mass agitation in the state. Mr Farooq was not advocating violence — indeed, he vowed that Muslim protesters will “continue to fight peacefully and politically” — but simply expressing the widely-held opinion that Kashmir is on a knife-edge. Since June at least 40 Muslims and three Hindus have died in police shootings. More than 1,000 are believed to have been injured in clashes with security forces. The violence was sparked by the state government’s decision to hand over 100 acres of forest land to the Amarnath Shrine Board. The early protests have since morphed into a full-throated cry for azadi in the Kashmir Valley.

The Indian government’s response has been predictable: repression, arrests and curfews. It is clear, however, that this time it will not be business as usual — the Kashmir issue is alive and burning more fiercely than ever. Mr Farooq rightly claimed that until the basic issue of Kashmir’s future is addressed the past will not be forgotten. In the past five years there was some progress in the Indian-administered state: tourists had returned, the economy grew, militancy slowed and the composite dialogue with Pakistan brought limited change to the lives of ordinary Kashmiris. Yet nothing was done to reduce the alienation of Kashmiris and the feeling that they did not ‘belong’ inside the Indian federation. Instead, New Delhi clung to the belief that Kashmiri resistance to ‘becoming Indian’ could be smothered by stationing 700,000 security forces in the state and pouring money into the region. The contemptuous attitude towards new ideas was on full display when New Delhi dismissed Gen Musharraf’s four-point solution to the Kashmir issue, which involved a gradual withdrawal of troops, self-governance, no changes to the region’s borders and a joint supervision mechanism.

What can be done now to avert a second violent uprising in Jammu and Kashmir? New Delhi has recourse to at least two safety valves. First, the troops in Kashmir — the visible arm of Indian repression — must be reduced. Second, cross-LoC trade and the movement of people must be rapidly increased. The cooler political temperature must then be used to address the call for azadi. It is not clear what the call means at the moment: complete independence, maximum autonomy from India or becoming a part of Pakistan? What is clear though is that things must change — and change soon.


IT appears that the authorities have learnt nothing from last year’s Lal Masjid episode. It was a trauma caused as much by misplaced — even ridiculous — concepts of Sharia enforcement as by sheer paralysis on the part of the authorities. We are forced to refer to the Lal Masjid affair because, as a Dawn report informs us, 70 new illegal mosques have come up in Islamabad, and the local administration and the Capital Development Authority have done nothing about it. Lal Masjid did not turn into a bastion for militants overnight. The Ghazi brothers gradually expanded the mosque under their control and built new structures, including living quarters for their families. The CDA, to be fair to it, pointed out the illegal activity to the government, but certain ministers and powerful sections of the bureaucracy looked the other way. Thus the mosque’s transformation into a centre for militants was encouraged. From here activists were sent into commercial areas to terrorise CD shop owners. Many other violations of the law took place. Finally, the government acted on July 3 last year leading to dozens of deaths.

Unless the government wants more Lal Masjids, it must act now. Evidently, the CDA and the local administration seem once again overawed by the power of those who exploit religion for their own narrow ends. More regretfully, the religious parties tend to keep quiet on such shenanigans and, thus, indirectly encourage illegal activity of this sort. The government would be failing in its duty if it does not act to uphold the law and to reclaim state land that has been misappropriated in the name of religion. The last elections have clearly proved that the overwhelming majority of the people reject Talibanism and stand for the rule of law, moderation and tolerance. The PPP itself is a party wedded to the ideals of liberalism, and it must not let corrupt elements masquerading as religious divines spread chaos in society. In the case of Lal Masjid, the Musharraf government had acted very late. Let not the present government repeat that mistake and thus allow criminal elements to defy the state’s writ in the federal capital.


YESTERDAY was International Literacy Day, and the good news is that out of a global population of 6.7bn people four billion are literate. However, while this fact may be cause for cheer, it also offers a chance to assess how heavily skewed the figures are in favour of the developed world. In many developing countries like ours, literacy rates are abysmal. Pakistan has an overall literacy rate of 55 per cent. On closer scrutiny, it becomes apparent that the statistics vary considerably when seen in the context of gender parity or the urban-rural divide. In any case, they reflect poorly on the government’s efforts to achieve the Millennium Development Goal in education which aims to ensure that by 2015 children everywhere, boys and girls alike, will be able to complete a full course of primary schooling.

If universal primary education is to be achieved, the government’s policy needs to be tailored to achieve this goal. The problem, however, has been the lack of implementation of reforms. What lies at the core of the problem is missing political will as amply demonstrated by our meagre education budget which is less than three per cent of GDP, whereas many other countries allocate four to five per cent of their respective budgets for educational needs. The government’s lackadaisical attitude towards education is compounded by socio-economic factors such as poverty, gender discrimination, child labour, poor educational infrastructure and militancy.

The onus is on the government to carry out the reforms it often promises in order to ameliorate the situation. Poverty is one of the primary reasons why children are unable to attend school. The opportunity cost of sending children to school, rather than to work, is too high and thus poverty alleviation measures are needed to address this problem. Moreover, greater efforts to spread awareness about the importance of education through the media are needed for the message to have a far-reaching impact on society. This will also help tackle the problem of militancy which is the newest threat to education. Militants incite people through radio transmissions not to send their children to school, and they resort to the bombing of girls’ schools. The government must ensure the damage is minimal especially in the northern areas which have been affected most by such militancy. Finally, the education sector itself is in dire need of reform. Widespread corruption in the education department has become the bane of the system and needs to be strictly dealt with before we can be sure that money for education is being properly used.


SINCE the tragic death of Benazir Bhutto last December, there has been a surreal quality to politics in Pakistan. But as a result of a bizarre series of events during the last few weeks the political landscape has become more akin to the theatre of the absurd.

The democratic order which was restored after a credible election has been run by the unelected heads of at least three political parties. Consequently, matters of state have progressed or regressed in accordance with the weight of countervailing influence brought to bear in each case.

The speed with which the move to impeach ex-President Musharraf became a national clarion call, indicates what can be done if one has the clout. Likewise, the foot-dragging witnessed on the other popular cause of the restitution of the Justice Chaudhry-led judiciary, is also attributable to a powerful impeding element.

The dichotomy in the power structure resulted in a paralysis of executive initiative signified by the bureaucracy’s reluctance to proceed with the business of state ‘without further orders’. A secondary cause for the inactivity is the civil servant’s customary reserve to commit himself to any course of action, lest, in the event of the government falling, he is left to justify his moves to the succeeding government.

Instances of unfettered power exercised by the controllers of the government’s destiny led to ill-conceived policy statements that have in certain instances been recalled, resulting in the kind of loss of face occasioned by the hasty withdrawal of the takeover of the ISI by the Ministry of Interior. There are also charges of reneging on commitments — as in the case of the Murree Declaration — levelled against the PPP. Consternation too has been caused by the growing list of novitiate appointees to public offices.

Such extraordinary events were made possible by the herd instinct of elected members who consider themselves duty bound to follow without question the lead given by the individual, the name or the family, even in situations compromising vital national interests. Such sadly, is the nature of the Pakistani democrat today.

Arbitrariness in high places seems to have infected the media also. Several Urdu and local language newspapers and TV channels have forsaken their traditional neutralism for partisanship. Their commentaries on the latest developments are tinged by a carte blanche approach towards rightist causes — political or militant — irrespective of the legality of or justification for the issues involved. Individual preferences dominate the requirement for professionally conducted analyses.

Confusion in public spaces is rampant, with everyone voicing half-baked opinions. No one is fully aware of the truth concerning any of the prevailing issues even though the economy is nose-diving into the clutches of the World Bank and the Taliban are at the door. Decisions taken in earlier times are retroactively declared illegal and ultra vires and yesterday’s villains are celebrated as today’s heroes.

The charged atmosphere was further exacerbated by PPP’s nomination of Asif Zardari for the office of the president to which he was subsequently elected. Much of the outcry focused on the missing prerequisites: education, experience, image and perception.

The presidential choice calls for a five-year stint (with possible renewals). During the tenure he will have recourse to protocol, presidential perks (including blanket immunity from all charges) and a ceremonial lifestyle suitable for an elder statesman. If he falls in line with democratic norms, he would have to resign from the co-chairmanship of the PPP, adopt a neutral stance, oversee the stripping of the extraordinary powers adopted by Gen Musharraf and fade away when the bugle blows as figureheads do.

If he chooses instead to adopt a political stance, he would for a period of time become the most powerful man in Pakistan in the Musharraf tradition, but in accordance with historical experience, he would ultimately meet a similar end to his predecessor.

Had he steered clear of the presidency, he would have avoided the controversy and doubt stirred by the thought of a PPP head of state operating in tandem with a PPP prime minister. As party co-chairman, he would have continued to exercise power as before. He would have had the opportunity to become an eminence grise of the Pakistan political scene casting his influence on national politics in the manner of Sonia Gandhi or Altaf Hussain, unfazed by the rise and fall of PPP or other governments or by charges of pelf and power bedevilling political dispensations.

The restitution of Chief Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry is another problem that requires urgent attention. The legal issues involved are not conducive to ready resolution. The need of the hour is for a solution that operates in the best interests of the state untrammelled by the hype, hysteria and heroics that have queered a perfectly justifiable movement. The question of the restoration of the dismissed judges and the restoration of the chief justice should be addressed separately.

The latter calls for a quid pro quo arrangement restoring the chief justice and precluding him (and all other judges) from entertaining challenges to the NRO. The restoration should also be conditioned on the understanding that the chief justice would retire after being restored, in deference to the judicial tradition of retirement of controversial judges.

From a constitutional perspective, Justice Chaudhry’s presence on the Bench would be highly controversial. In all probability, he would be perceived as a champion of democracy, unassailable by any contrary force. Such a view would give rise to a sense of inequality among the pillars of the state with the judiciary dominating the executive and the legislature.

From a judicial perspective, Justice Chaudhry’s compliance with the rules of national justice would preclude him from appearing on any Bench likely to be addressed by any lawyer who had supported his cause. He would also be precluded from any Bench dealing with issues concerning individuals or causes having a nexus with the restoration campaign.

It seems though that so long as personal agendas take precedence over national causes, the balance of the state is unlikely to be restored.


SOME of President Robert Mugabe’s senior aides have had secret negotiations with South African mediators in an effort to secure amnesties from any future prosecution in return for supporting regime change in Zimbabwe.

Army, police and secret service chiefs have repeatedly pledged loyalty to Mugabe in public and insisted that they would never ‘salute’ or support a government led by opposition leader Morgan Tsvangirai, the head of the Movement for Democratic Change (MDC), who secured most votes in the presidential election that took place in March this year.

But government sources in both Zimbabwe and South Africa have told The Observer that a senior army general and a Central Intelligence Organisation (CIO) chief visited Pretoria last weekend to seek assurances from South Africa’s President Thabo Mbeki that they would not be prosecuted in the event of Tsvangirai taking over.

Mbeki is mediating in the power-sharing talks between Mugabe’s ruling Zanu-PF party and the MDC, negotiations which appeared to be hanging by a thread last week with the MDC threatening to pull out and accusing Zanu-PF of a lack of commitment to dialogue.

MDC spokesman Nelson Chamisa said his party’s patience was being stretched to the limit after Mugabe told journalists in Zambia on Wednesday at the funeral of President Levy Mwanawasa that he would form a new government of national unity if Tsvangirai did not sign the document already agreed to during the talks.

‘We feel frozen at the moment and if the MDC does not want to see the country move, then we will be left with no choice than to form a new government without them,’ said Mugabe. On Saturday, however, the MDC backed away from its threat, insisting that it was still fully committed to dialogue.

Robert Mugabe relies heavily on Zimbabwe’s defence force chiefs, most of whom have been supporters of the ageing dictator since the 1970s war of independence and were heavily involved in conducting the murderous campaign of violence against MDC supporters and activists that erupted after the March election results were announced.

Mbeki’s spokesman, Mukoni Ratshitanga, said he knew nothing of any secret meetings and insisted power-sharing talks were continuing.

Sources close to the talks said the Zimbabwe defence forces’ Lieutenant-General Constantine Chiwenga, police commissioner-general Augustine Chihuri, and CIO director-general Happyton Bonyongwe were at a private meeting in Pretoria. Behind the scenes, Zanu-PF’S politburo, including Mugabe, is said to be distancing itself from the violence that killed more than 120 people between the first round of voting and June’s one-man presidential run-off poll, laying the blame on the army and the CIO.

— The Guardian, London


PPP CO-CHAIRMAN Asif Ali Zardari got a two-thirds majority … in the presidential electoral college.… His induction will mark the country’s transition to full civilian democracy after nine years of military rule. Pro-dictatorship forces … were still in shock as one last blow struck them in the form of the election of Mr Zardari. These anti-democratic and anti-people forces had also tried to subvert the mandate of the general elections to create differences among political forces and had also resorted to the postponement or boycott of elections. They succeeded partially in this bid. However, they failed to distract the political forces.

Benazir Bhutto may not be amongst us but her party is in power through the vote of the people. It is time to take revenge on anti-democratic forces. Benazir Bhutto strongly believed that democracy is the best revenge; hence the PPP government should follow her dictum and strengthen democracy.

The PPP has guidelines provided by Benazir Bhutto. The Charter of Democracy is there and by implementing it, democracy can be strengthened. The democratic forces that had elected the prime minister unanimously and later voted for Mr Zardari in the presidential elections can also stand with the PPP on this point.

Some clear indications of reconciliation are there. With the start of the presidential elections, the political forces played a laudable role. Also worth appreciating is the statement of PML-N chief Nawaz Sharif who said that Mr Zardari’s election spelt the defeat of dictatorship. …Asif Zardari’s election … is not only a victory for democratic forces, it is also a challenge for the party’s resolve.

According to the 1973 Constitution, the country has parliamentary democracy. But time and again it was … tailored to suit the needs of dictators. An imbalance of power was created turning it into a presidential system of government. There is a dire need to restore the parliamentary system in its original form. The PPP has got a golden opportunity. It is up to Mr Zardari to keep his promise and repeal the Seventeenth Amendment and Article 58-2(b) in the interest of democracy.

The PPP … should realise that it faces myriad challenges. The PPP must work responsibly to demonstrate its democratic spirit. — (Sept 7)

— Selected and translated by Sohail Sangi

__________________
Regards,
P.R.