THE revival of allegations of corruption in the Agosta submarine deal in Pakistan, the news of the Russian nuclear submarine lease to the Indian Navy and the loud thinking of Gen Kapoor have provided the media much food for speculation. But an informed discussion on the details and implications is missing.

Take the case of the Indo-Russian submarine deal, by which the Russians will lease out NERPA, a nuclear powered attack submarine (K152, Nato designation Akula II), to India for ten years.

Our worthy columnists would have leapt to heap scorn on institutions and individuals in Pakistan if our navy had leased a submarine which:

1. Had been laid down in 1993, with construction suspended due to lack of funds;

2. Was mothballed and then completed in October 2008, fifteen year later;

3. Had reportedly been constructed in a shipyard with little experience of construction and which employed workers not fit for the purpose;

4. After launch had a serious accident during sea trials in November 2008 resulting in the death of 20 persons and injuries to 21;

5. Was repaired with sea trials scheduled for June 2009, but due to delays not completed till October 2009;

6. Has been leased to the Indian Navy for ten years at the cost of over $650 million;

7. Is not a ballistic missile submarine as announced by the IN, but an attack submarine.

Why India is on the road to nuclear power for its fleet has also not been discussed by our media except in a cursory manner. Judging by writings about the subject in Indian defence journals, the answer apparently lies in its rivalry with China.

This is what Cdr Khuran had to say in the Indian Defence Review “While their (Indian and Chinese) immediate security imperatives lie in the Indian Ocean and Western Pacific Ocean respectively, their strategic spheres have begun to overlap in both areas. This is leading them to stretch their maritime-strategic ‘footprint’ across the entire Asian region…. The sea area of the north-eastern Indian Ocean, the Malacca Straits and the South China Sea is important for India’s supreme national security interest of survival.”

On December 15, 2009, Vice Admiral Arun Kumar Singh, former C-in-C Eastern Naval Command has this to say: “In my opinion the boundary problems between India and Pakistan and India and China, cannot be solved in the next few decades, and hence some kind of “strategic-conventional” deterrence, based on a new nuclear doctrine, will be needed along with political will, and strategic foresight.”

From the Chinese point of view, Ronald O’Rourke of the Congressional Research Service suggested that the long term goals of People’s Liberation Army Navy planning include: Assert or defend China’s claims in maritime territorial disputes and China’s interpretation of international laws relating freedom of navigation in exclusive economic zones; Protect China’s sea lines of communications to the Persian Gulf, on which China relies for some of its energy imports; andassert China’s status as a major world power, encourage other states in the region to align their policies with China, and displace US regional military influence.

China, despite its increasing emphasis on coal, biomass, nuclear power, and other alterna tives, requires more oil and natural gas to sustain its amazing economic growth. It is the world’s second largest consumer of oil after the United States. Chinese officials see this very dependence on imported petroleum products as a pressure point that a future adver sary can exploit. Therefore, vital sea lines of communications (SLOCs) around the southern Eurasian rimland must be protected.

One Chinese analyst even worries that the 244 islands that constitute India’s Andaman-Nicobar archipel ago can be used as a “metal chain” to lock shut the north-western entrance of the Malacca Strait. This analyst, Zhang Ming sums up by saying that “India is perhaps China’s most realistic strategic adversary.” At present Sino-Indian eyeballing is confined to the land border between the two countries and naval rivalry is low key and potential rather than actual.

It seems probable therefore that Indian Navy’s nuclear submarines with their capability of very long endurance hence long range and longer time on patrol, are being inducted for operations in the North-Eastern Indian Ocean, and Western Pacific Ocean and not meant to be pitted against Pakistan in the North Arabian Sea, where Indian conventional submarines can be more gainfully deployed.

Indian perceptions of Pakistan’s capabilities can be gauged by what VAdm Singh has to say “In 2009, Pakistan appears to have achieved the second strike capability, which may suffice, even though it does not have the SSBN type of nuclear ballistic missile submarines. Its 60 odd nuclear weapons are aimed at India, while its two new Chinese supplied nuclear plants have commenced producing PU-239 for the next generation of weapons, which are bound to be copies of Chinese bombs, and may not require testing.”

The fact of Pakistan’s long land border with India and its reach into the Indian heartland by its land based missiles (armed if required by nuclear warheads) gives Pakistan Navy the freedom of action to go nuclear at a date of its own choosing, rather than to be impelled to do so now.

And this is where the reality of a restricted budget, inefficiency of the Indian defence industry and corruption are other topics not considered worthy of discussion by our media. Other agencies do so in some detail. Just note what the BBC has to say. According to Sunil Raman of the BBC (25 Oct 09) “India’s plans to improve its defence capabilities have suffereda setback because three highly publicised military deals have been delayed by years.

India rescued Sevmesh shipyard in northern Russia from closure by agreeing to buy the carrier Gorshkov and get it refitted – a deal which was hastily agreed in two days. The then naval chief Admiral Arun Prakash was made to believe that it was a ‘fixed price contract’. But over five years the cost of the deal has risen from $974m to $2.2bn. And it is still rising. The delay and cost overruns of three major defence acquisitions (two Navy and one Air Force) have also seen the national audit watchdog criticise the government. When it comes to defence issues in India, speed does not seem to be of paramount importance.” In the end the coat has to be cut according to the cloth.

None of the above has been highlighted in the Pakistani press. There is a dire lack of in-depth discussion of defence matters. The PN submarine deal has been in the news more to cause discomfort to individuals or establishments and less to discuss whether it is what the Navy needs. The shoddy Indo-Russian deal has not been under the microscope at all.

The writer is a retired commodore of Pakistan Navy.

PROMOTION of economic welfare of people is an important objective which underpins liberal democracy. To be truly representative, democracy then has to be strengthened by holding periodically scheduled national elections in the country. The entire edifice is built as an expression of a modern state, a defined territory with the nation committed to progress and to participation of its citizens in this process.

Pakistan has not been very lucky in fulfilling this objective. Elections, for example, have been held several times during the last six decades to arbitrate, at least theoretically, divergent views and positions about striving for the goal, resulting in creating more divergence among the main political players.

In March 1954, elections were held in East Pakistan which set the stage for a denouement which was beyond expectation. The dispute about the place of Bengali as the official language of East Pakistan unleashed events which ultimately affected the framework and the nature of the state of Pakistan itself. In that election, the United Front of opposition parties routed the official Muslim League and turned it into an insignificant minority party in the province.

This situation set in motions some important developments which were obviously ignored by the leaders in West Pakistan. The final outcome of the fallout from the 1954 elections became clear with the 1970 elections when Awami League won 170 out of 172 seats for East Pakistan in the national assembly, with PPP gaining 81 seats in West Pakistan. According to the parliamentary convention, Awami League should have formed the government at the centre, which did not happen. The rest of the story, leading up to the break up of Pakistan is familiar to all informed readers and need not be repeated here.

The third fateful election took place in 1977 when Z.A. Bhutto was accused of massive rigging at the polls, resulting in long negotiations with the Pakistan National Alliance, being the alliance of various opposition parties, resulting in an agreement only to be thwarted by the military coup of General Ziaul Haq.

The fourth critical election took place in 1997 when PML-N won with a heavy mandate, as it became known in hindsight. As a result, powers of President Farooq Leghari were clipped, the NAB was let loose, Supreme Court building was attacked, and the Shariat Bill was pushed through the assembly, declaring Pakistan a truly Islamic state. The events around this mandate were still unfolding when General Musharraf declared his military coup and took over as supreme commander and then later as president of the country as well.

This brief survey seems to indicate as if Pakistan was established on some very unstable fault lines which were set in motion with each of these elections. This is a difficult question to answer. We need to note, however, that we are currently coping with the results of the 2008 general elections, which gave a majority of seats to the PPP and it has formed its government in alliance with some other political parties. After the passage of almost eighteen months since the elections, the PPP-led alliance is weak but holding on to power, and the main opposition is not in an ‘explosion’ mode, to upset the applecart. Mr Asif Zardari, president and co-chairman of the party is in a spot for various charges of misdemeanour.

The founder of Pakistan, Mohammad Ali Jinnah, had argued that because Muslims were a nation, therefore they were justified to have a territory to promote their identity. In the areas of British India where they were in a majority they should establish their own autonomous political system. Underlining this claim was the assumption that in a united India after the departure of the British Muslims would be at the mercy of the Hindu majority. Autonomy was then associated with the opportunity to improve the welfare of the people of Pakistan and allow them to lead their lives according to the principles of their religion. At times, Jinnah used terms as Islamic welfare state, or welfare state based on principles of Islam, but did but not dilate on these phrases.

Jinnah also did not expound what he meant by Muslims being a nation, even though part of this nation was to be left behind in India after the partition. And then the independence of Bangladesh gave a further blow to the concept.

A culturally or religiously homogeneous community’s claim to be a nation and as a nation to have a territory is not new, however. For guidance on this matter we need to refer to the modern European history where during the period from mid-nineteenth to mid-twentieth century this idea had received considerable attention, leading up to the declaration by the US President, Woodrow Wilson, affirming the right of self-determination for communities. Jinnah had a long sojourn in Europe during the thirties and he must have noticed the debates going on this issue.

Eric Hobsbawm, a well-known European historian, holds the view that a nation was not a spontaneous growth but an artefact. It had actually to be constructed. Extending this argument in the context of Pakistan, we need to invoke the concept of nation-state to accomplish this task. And drawing on European experience, liberal democracy can play an effective role in promoting progress and in allowing the people to participate in this progress.

The potential for this scenario exists, provided this time NRO does not become the new fault line to destabilise the country. The state of Pakistan is a legal entity created by the Indian Independence Act 1947. Its identity as a nation can be strengthened in the framework of representative democracy. There are many factors which would have to be taken into consideration in order to facilitate the fulfilment of this objective, and I would briefly focus on two of these factors to illustrate my point, as follows: class structure of the society currently comprising the nation, and the role of universally accessible primary education in preparing the young to become responsible citizens.

Experience of advanced countries clearly indicates that the backbone of representative democracy has been the support of the bourgeoisie. In Pakistan, the preference of the rich is to have the state machinery that governs the least, apart from maintaining law and order and protecting property rights. It is only in that framework that they could maximise their power and perks; in the middle class, there is a vocal minority which would prefer authoritarian rulers emphasising stability and security at the cost of freedom, and they come from various professions including senior bureaucracy, information technology, medical practice, corporate executive, etc.

The horizon of the poor is usually confined to local conditions, to get justice from the wheelers and dealers at the regional and local levels. Politics of the left or of left-leaning agenda as well as trade union activities play from zero to negligible role in the country. These barriers can be overcome through a demonstration effect of a working liberal democracy, if the circumstances would allow it to function.

Concerning primary education, there is strong evidence to show that the social benefits of compulsory and universal primary education far, far exceed their social costs, as compared to higher levels of education. And in terms of the opportunity to inculcate national sense, no other alternative including the madressah can compete with what the free primary education can offer. Then why has Pakistan ignored this opportunity for the last sixty years? A short answer is that the present chaotic system suits the upper classes in the country.

JANUARY 5 was celebrated by Kashmiris on both sides of the Line of Control, as the Right to Self Determination Day to commemorate the adoption of UNSC resolution on this day in 1949 granting Kashmiris the right to determine their own future. The day is also a sad reminder of Kashmiris not having been given their inalienable rights after more than six decades. In Indian-held Kashmir (IHK) the day was solemnly observed at the call of Mir Waiz Umer Farooq, the Chairman of All Parties Hurriyat Conference (APHC).

In Muzzaffarabad, the Azad Jammu and Kashmir (AJK) government and people renewed their pledge to continue the struggle for right of self determination until it is achieved. The AJK Legislative Assembly held a special session to mark the day. President Zardari addressed the session and put the world on notice that peace in Kashmir was linked to “peace in the region and time is near when superpowers and the countries in the region will have to make serious decision about Kashmir”. He reiterated Pakistan unstinted support to Kashmiris declaring that “we can give our lives, but will not let any harm come to Kashmir”.

While such rhetoric may have some psychological impact on the Kashmiris, the time has come to avoid cheap sentimentalism. Empty slogans will not bring nearer the freedom goal.

The sad fact is that Kashmir as a ‘core’ issue has lost its urgency and primacy as determinant of peace and security in the region. The world’s focus is no longer on this issue. Since 9/11 there is no more a legitimate armed struggle against foreign domination or alien occupation. It is seen only through the prism of terrorism. India has succeeded in preserving all its positions and has shifted focus from its unlawful occupation of Kashmir to the overall objective of advancing the peace process. What is worse is that capitalising on western phobia about Islamic fundamentalism and terrorism, the Indian propaganda machinery has subtly but effectively exploited this feat and equated the Kashmiri’s struggle for self determination to terrorist activity, supported by Pakistan. This well-orchestrated campaign has narrowed the parameters of the Kashmir issue to “cross-border terrorism.”

The Islamabad Declaration was indeed the beginning of erosion of our Kashmir stance. The UNSC resolution 1172 of June 6, 1998 was an extremely important development. It was after November 5, 1965 that the UNSC took cognizance of the Kashmir issue and urged India and Pakistan to resume the dialogue between them and on all outstanding issues, including Kashmir. Pakistan failed to use this resolution to revive and internationalise the issue again.

Furthermore, the Islamabad Declaration did not make any reference to the Lahore Declaration (February 21, 1999), Simla Agreement or the UN charter. Diplomatically speaking, this has been a major blunder. Kashmir is now only a bilateral irritant. Kashmir has lost the primacy, having been made subservient to the issue of terrorism, and in this context Pakistan’s unilateral commitment not to allow its territory to be used to support terrorism in any manner without seeking a reciprocal commitment from India is regarded by diplomatic observers as a great setback.

The fundamental shift in Pakistan’s Kashmir policy is primarily based on Musharraf’s appeasement policy with India. The gradual but steady silence on Indian atrocities in the IHK and a lukewarm projection of Kashmir in the UN General Assembly bears testimony to this change of policy. References from President Musharraf’s address to the world body during the last five years (2002 – 2006), reveal this tragic slide in our position.

The UN General Assembly is the most distinguished forum used annually by world leaders to explain their country’s policies before the international community; seeking its understanding and support to their problems. The statements by these heads of state/government constitute basic documents to gauge the foreign policy direction and their nuances for appropriate response by the concerned quarters. Ever since Pakistan joined the UN, the Kashmir issue has been the dominant theme of its statements, reflecting the depth of concern and importance Pakistan attaches to the Issue.

How abjectly Musharraf surrendered to India is manifest in the policy statements before UN General Assembly during its annual sessions which gradually became less concerned on Kashmir. On September 12, 2002, President Musharraf told the UN General Assembly that the “struggle of the Kashmiri people for their right to self-determination continues unabated despite the brutal repression and state terrorism by India. In the recent past, India has embarked on a sinister campaign to malign the Kashmiri freedom struggle by trying to link it with international terrorism. The Kashmir struggle cannot be delegitimised by such false claims”.

On September 24, 2003, Musharraf, in his address to the UN General Assembly’s 58th session, recalled “the brutal suppression of the Kashmiris’ demand for self-determination and freedom from Indian occupation” and invited the International community’s attention to the Indian policy “to suppress the legitimate struggle of the Kashmiri people to exercise their right to self-determination in accordance with the UNSC resolution”. He also castigated India for seeking to exploit the International anti-terrorist sentiment after 9/11 to delegitimise the Kashmiri freedom struggle and held India responsible for “refusing to implement the UNSC resolutions and perpetrating gross and consistent violations of human rights in Kashmir.”

Since 2004 there has been a complete turn-around. There has been no mention of Kashmir being “the most dangerous place in the world”, no mention of the right of self-determination, no denunciation of the Indian atrocities and no reference to the UNSC resolutions and certainly no reference to the indigenous freedom struggle of the Kashmiri people.

Addressing the September 2004 session of the UN General Assembly, President Musharraf studiously avoided all such expressions and restricted himself to “aspirations of peace both in India and Pakistan” and Pakistan’s firm commitment “to resolving all disputes with India peacefully, including the Kashmir dispute” and expressing the hope that “India shows the same sincerity, flexibility, and boldness that Pakistan will demonstrate”.

On September 15, 2005 President Musharraf addressed the 60th UN General Assembly Summit session. In his survey of global problems he disposed of the Kashmir issue in just one sentence, “it is essential to find a just solution of the dispute over Jammu and Kashmir acceptable to Pakistan, India, and above all to the people of Kashmir”.

In 2006, President Musharraf’s reference to the Kashmir issue in his UN General Assembly address was more puerile and commonplace. “Pakistan desires a peaceful environment in the region. We have been engaged in a peace process with India aimed at confidence building and resolving issue, including the Jammu and Kashmir dispute; which have been a source of tension and conflict between the two countries in the past.”

In 2007, President Musharraf did not attend the UN General Assembly due to internal political crisis. Pakistan’s delegation was led by the foreign secretary. Abandoning the right of self-determination has done tremendous damage to Pakistan and to the cause of Kashmir. It is not the LoC that has become irrelevant but the Kashmir issue itself in the overall context of bilateral relations. Despite government disclaimers that there has been no paradigm shift the crude reality is that Pakistan has altered its historic position and is now open to “new ideas” and “out of box” solutions.

Regrettably, the democratic government of Gillani has also continued the appeasement policy of Musharraf era. President Zardari addressing the UNGA on September 25, 2008 followed the tradition of his predecessor. He asked India to “resume the composite dialogue. We seek a peaceful resolution of all outstanding issues with India. Meaningful progress towards resolution of Kashmir dispute is necessary for durable peace and stability in South Asia.” Period. Zardari did not mention the UN resolution on Kashmir, nor did he raise the issue of Indian security forces’ brutal policies and continuing violation of human rights in IHK.

Gillani government, for its own credibility must examine the Kashmir policy in all its dimensions. Full-scale debate on our foreign policy with focus on Kashmir must be held in the parliament. A policy based on principles and sentiments of Kashmiris alone will restore the credibility of Pakistan’s avowed policy of support to Kashmir.

The writer is a former ambassador.

AS we enter 2010, the script for a futuristic agriculture, which brings back the smile on the face of farmers, without leaving any scar on the environment, is being rewritten.

In India, what began as a small initiative some six years back in a non-descript village in Khamam district, has now spread to over two million acres in 21 districts of Andhra Pradesh. I remember when I first talked about the miracle brought about in village Pannukula, many thought I was simply trying to romanticise agriculture. How farming can be done without the use of chemical pesticides, I was repeatedly asked.

Pannukula dug out a lonely furrow, but eventually blazed a trail. In the next four years, more than 318,000 farmers in 21 out of the 23 districts of Andhra Pradesh have discarded the intensive chemical farming systems, and shifted to a more sustainable, economically viable and ecologically friendly agriculture. A silent revolution is in the offing. In Kharif 2009 (the monsoon season), some 1.4 million acres was covered with what is now known as Community Managed Sustainable Agriculture (CMSA).

As I write this, the area had expanded to two million acres. More than 0.6 million acres increase in a farming system that does not use chemical pesticides, and is also phasing out chemical fertiliser, that too in matter of few months, is a record of sorts. And all this has happened without any push from the government agencies and the private sector. I see no reason why this environmentally safe, and a farmer-friendly system cannot cover 200 million acres across the country in another ten years or so if the government gets serious.

Ten years from now, in 2020, when we try to look back, Indian agriculture can be transformed into a healthy and vibrant system where farmer suicides have been relegated to history, where distress and despondency has been replaced by the lost pride in farming, and where agriculture becomes sustainable in the long run and does not result in climate change.

What began as an experiment is now also phasing out the use of chemical fertilisers. It uses a mixture of scientific proven technologies, indigenous knowledge and traditional wisdom. Farmers are replacing chemical fertilisers and pesticides with microbial formulations, intensive use of composting techniques, vermi-composting, and apply bio-fertilisers, and use bio-extracts for controlling pests.

Paddy crop has increased significantly under CMSA. It brought in a complete shift from conventional agriculture and offered secure and stable livelihoods. The crop yields have remained the same, the pest attack has drastically reduced, and the soil is returning to its natural fertility levels. As soil fertility improves over the years, crop yields have started going up still further. More importantly, farmer’s expenditure on health problems emanating from pesticides application has also gone down by 40 per cent on an average.

There is more money now in the hands of the farmers. The cost of cultivation per acre has also come down by 33 per cent. Take the case of cotton, a CMSA farmer saves more than Rs 12,500 per hectare in a year on account of no application of pesticides alone. With his crop productivity remaining stable, cotton farmers have got a new lease of life. The environment too has become healthier and safe.

What began as an experiment to evolve a farming system without the application of chemical pesticides is now also phasing out the use of chemical fertilisers by relying on a mixture of scientific proven technologies, indigenous knowledge and traditional wisdom. Normally, 56 per cent of the cost of cotton cultivation is primarily on account of pesticides. And don’t forget, elsewhere in the State and for that matter in the country, 70 per cent of the farmers who are committing suicide are engaged in cotton cultivation.

No farmer has committed suicide in the areas where non-pesticides management system of farming is being followed.

More money in the hands of farmers means less debt. I haven’t seen any other village in the country in past three decades of my work in agriculture, which has been able to recover its entire mortgaged land from the money lenders in just three years of adopting non-pesticides management. This happened in village Ramachandrapuram in Khamam district where all 75 farmers have even paid back the outstanding rate of interest.

Studies in five districts show that out of the 467 families that had mortgaged their land, at least 386 have recovered it in two years time.

This is a roadmap for the future of Indian agriculture, and for that global agriculture. It not only provides a sustainable path, with a very low carbon footprint, and has tremendous potential to remove poverty and hunger. It has been conclusively demonstrated that household food security has improved with a 40 per cent drop in the purchase of food from the market. The crop yields have gone up, and farmers are now able to cultivate two crops in a year. This is the Zero Hunger model that I normally talk about which needs to be adopted under the proposed National Food Security Act.

Women and farmer Self Help Groups’ play a critical role in CMSA. Savings have increased, and a federation of 850,675 self-help groups now involves 10 million women from the poor households. This federation now holds a corpus of $1.5 billion providing a bundle of economic services. No wonder, sustainable agriculture without external inputs can revolutionise the rural landscape, where hunger and poverty becomes history.

The writer is a New Delhi-based food analyst.

AS the Supreme Court’s detailed judgment in the National Reconciliation Ordinance (NRO) case stripped the president of his immunity available to him under the constitution? Or is he still immune from prosecution for his acts of omission and commission?

The presidential immunity is guaranteed by Article 248 of the constitution. Para 2 of Article 248 provides: “No criminal proceedings whatsoever shall be instituted or continued against the President or a Governor in any court during his term of office.” Para 3 of the same article adds: “No process for the arrest or imprisonment of the President or a Governor shall issue from any court during his term of office.”

However, para 4 of Article 248 provides that “No civil proceedings in which relief is claimed against the President or a Governor shall be instituted during his term of office in respect of anything done by or not done by him in his personal capacity whether before or after he enters upon his office unless, at least sixty days before the proceedings are instituted, notice in writing has been delivered to him, or sent to him in the manner prescribed by law, stating the nature of the proceedings, the cause of action, the name, description and place of residence of the party by whom the proceedings are to be instituted and the relief which the party claims.”

Thus the Constitution provides blanket immunity to the president, as well as a provincial governor, in respect of criminal proceedings as indicated by the terms ‘No’ and “whatsoever’ in the relevant clause of Article 248. No distinction has been made between the acts performed by the president in his official capacity and those performed by him in his personal capacity. This means that the immunity covers both types of acts. Speaking, purely hypothetically, even if the president shoots the prime minister on the floor of the National Assembly, he cannot be prosecuted.

This immunity is available with regard to both fresh proceedings and those pending before the president entered his office. Not only that, the president as long as he holds his office cannot be arrested or imprisoned. It is pertinent to mention that Article 248 does not provide that criminal proceedings against the president shall be terminated the moment he takes oath of his office. What it provides is that any previous criminal proceedings will be put on hold. This immunity notwithstanding, the president can be tried by parliament on the charge of gross misconduct or violating the constitution, which is the only constitutional way of removing him.

However, civil proceedings against the president may be initiated, subject to two conditions: One, the civil proceedings can be instituted only against the acts of omission and commission of the president performed in his personal capacity regardless of whether he performed those acts before or after he assumed his office. Two, the president must be informed at least 60 days before the institution of the proceedings.

Here one important question arises: Why is immunity from criminal proceedings available to the president or a governor while the same is not available to the prime minister, a chief minister or a federal or provincial minister? Specifically, why is the immunity available at all when it is in conflict with the right to equality before law and equal protection of law, a fundamental right guaranteed by Article 25 of the constitution? To answer this question, one needs to trace the roots of the immunity of the head of state.

At the very outset, it needs to be mentioned that the immunity of the head of state is almost a universal phenomenon. The concept of immunity of the head of state is derived from the principle of sovereign immunity stating that the sovereign can do no wrong. This is only logical, because the sovereign being the source of laws must be beyond any prosecution at all. This concept is applied in what are called constitutional monarchies, such as the United Kingdom, where in theory the monarch is the fountain of justice and is historically regarded as the source of laws and creator of courts. This immunity is sweeping covering both civil and criminal matters.

Moreover, in constitutional monarchies, the king or queen is merely a titular head, who always acts on the advice of his or her ministers. Hence, the phrase, “The King can do no wrong.” However, in none of the constitutional monarchies, the immunity is available to the prime minister or the members of his cabinet — the real executive.

But what about republican countries — having an elected head of state opposed to a hereditary one? Is immunity available to the head of state in the republics? Here we may distinguish between the republics where the head of state is merely a titular head and effective powers are exercised by the cabinet (India, for instance) and those where the president is also the chief executive (such as the USA).

The president in India enjoys immunity against criminal proceedings. Article 361 (2) of Indian constitution provides that “No criminal proceedings whatsoever shall be instituted against the President, or the Governor of a State, in any court during his term of office.”

However, under para 4 of the same article, civil proceedings may be instituted against the president for any act done by him/her in her personal capacity, whether done before or after he/she assumed her office, subject to at least two months notice. Thus immunity available to the president in both India and Pakistan is similar in its scope and limits. Needless to say, the provisions governing presidential immunity are borrowed by Pakistan’s constitution from India’s.

In states like India and Pakistan, the president is not sovereign. Nor is he regarded as the source of laws or the creator of courts or the fountain of justice. Then why does he enjoy immunity? The reason is that in those countries the president is the symbol of the federation and all actions of the federation are taken in his name. He is supposed to be above party politics and represents the whole country rather than one party or one region.

His office thus commands a lot of respect. In India, as well as in the 1973 constitution of Pakistan in its original shape, the president is supposed to act only on the advice of the cabinet or the prime minister. On the other hand, the ministers including the prime minister represent a political party, are in no way regarded as a symbol of the federation and exercise effective powers. Therefore logically they do not have the umbrella of constitutional immunity.

One of the anomalies in the 1973 constitution as amended is that whereas the president has been made all powerful, he still retains his immunity from criminal proceedings. However, for better or for worse the immunity still exists and cannot be taken away unless the constitution is amended.

In the USA, the presidential immunity does not spring from written provisions of the constitution but it has been conferred on him by the courts to ensure effective and smooth functioning of the office of the president.

There are thus three reasons in the main for head of state immunity: traditions and customs, effective and smooth functioning of the executive, and the idea of head of state being a non-controversial figurehead representing national unity.

Coming back to the NRO case, the presidential immunity was not questioned before the Supreme Court. Nor does the detailed judgment contain any reference to that. However, the judgment orders the executive to approach the Swiss government for re-opening of the corruption cases in which the president is a co-accused, which were initiated years before he entered his office. Now the question is whether the president enjoys immunity in Swiss courts as well. Obviously Article 248 of Pakistan’s constitution is not binding on the Swiss courts.

Hence, a case for the president’s immunity in Swiss courts, or for that matter in the courts of any other country, cannot be made on the basis of his immunity from criminal proceedings in Pakistan. The President’s immunity in foreign courts rests on the principle of sovereign immunity as applied in international law, whereby one head of state cannot be prosecuted in the courts of another state. However, as in case of diplomatic immunity, the presidential immunity can be waived voluntarily.

Hence, a queer situation will arise if the government itself requests the Swiss courts to try the president of Pakistan. It is difficult to recall any other example where the government of a country requested another country for the criminal trial of its own de jure head of state. And whether we like it or not, Mr Zardari is the de jure president of Pakistan. Probably the authors of the NRO did not visualize such a situation.

HOBBLED by an utterly chaotic situation at home, the people of Pakistan could be forgiven for momentarily taking their eyes off the unremitting suffering and plight of their Palestinian brethren or, for that matter, other oppressed Muslims in the world.

The same benefit could, with a pinch of salt, also be given to the ruling Pakistani elite; they have their hands full of a crisis of confidence they know not how to surmount although, in the best of times, their head honcho wouldn’t shy away from deriding even the Kashmiri freedom fighters standing up to Indian tyranny as ‘terrorists’. One can well imagine what sentiments he and the coterie around him would be nursing against the distant Palestinians groaning under Israeli oppression. Don’t also overlook the fact of this ruling elite priding itself as a front-line ‘ally’ of the US which, in turn, is the most steadfast guardian of Israeli neo-colonialism.

The Palestinians, in general, have never had a dearth of enemies and ‘brothers’ impeding their fight for freedom, ostensibly or unobtrusively. But nothing from the past could be compared with the recent ganging up of friends and foes to thwart the aspirations of the Palestinians living under Israeli brutality of the past 43 years, especially those corralled in the world’s largest concentration camp in Gaza.

Israel is the enemy upfront with the avowed ‘mission’ to decimate the Palestinians of the Gaza Strip for their ‘crime’ of exercising their democratic right to have a government of their choice under Hamas. The US and Europe have given an open licence to the Zionists of Israel to squeeze the last drop of life out of the Palestinians of the occupied lands, in general, and of those incarcerated in Gaza, in particular. The West, as one, has had no qualms of conscience in standing firmly behind Israel’s draconian policy vis-à-vis the Palestinians of Gaza.

The West’s unremitting approval of Israel’s expansionism gave the Israeli people the gall to return an ultra hawk and war-monger like Benyamin Netanyahu to power last year. Netanyahu hasn’t disappointed the electorate, or his western mentors, by doing exactly as he was expected.

This past week Netanyahu bared his iron-clad knuckles when he brazenly declared with a stentorian élan that Israel will not abandon its illegal settlements, built on occupied Palestinian lands in total violation of international law but with tacit and, at times, unequivocal, western support. The Zionist, in a frenzy of hubris, had the cheek to tell the world that Israel will hold on to its booty till eternity.

Netanyahu indulged in his orgy of hubris with President Obama’s special representative for Israeli-Palestinian conflict, former Senator George Mitchell, standing beside him and helplessly witnessing another nail being driven into the coffin of his master’s plan — and before him of George W. Bush’s — for a two-state solution to the endemic Israeli-Palestinian schism.

But there is absolutely no irony in Netanyahu rubbing into Mitchell and making mince-meat of his mission. He has been thumbing his nose at Obama’s effete and, by now completely washed out, demand for a freeze on Israeli settlements on sequestered Palestinian lands. He knows that he has the Americans wrapped around his little finger just as all his predecessors-in-office have had the Americans virtually ‘in their pocket.’

It was this absolute faith in their ability to do as they will to the Palestinians at their mercy — and taking the West’s acquiescence for granted — that saw the Israelis unleashing barbaric terror on Gaza in a brutal invasion in December 2008, a month after Obama winning the White House, and a month before he formally moved into it. The timing of the Israeli aggression was impeccable.

The Israeli confidence wasn’t misplaced or over-blown, either. The US, then still under Bush, went on supplying those lethal weapons to Israel that were used with bestial impunity against the hapless Palestinians of Gaza. Europe mumbled, at best, faint and inane murmurs of protest while Israeli predators went about their pogrom of the Gazans with methodical cold-bloodedness. The mayhem went on unimpeded until the Israelis had had enough of blood-letting and were satisfied with the wrath they had unleashed on a people without any means to thwart the predators.

However, there was a perceptible sense of outrage in the western public opinion, if not so much in US than certainly in Europe. There were howls of protest against the complicity of their governments and leaders in Israel’s crimes against humanity.

It was the same sense of solidarity with the oppressed people of Gaza that brought 1400 human rights advocates and activists to Egypt, in late December 2009, to mark the first anniversary of the Israeli invasion of Gaza. But Egypt wasn’t the final destination of these conscientious people from the US, western Europe, Australia, Japan and even India. The Pakistanis were conspicuous by their absence.

The activists’ final destination was Gaza. The choice of Egypt as a way-station was unavoidable because the only outlet for Gaza, other than those through the Israeli blockade, happened to be through Egypt. So they congregated in Egypt, expecting that they would be allowed to cross into Gaza.

But little did they know that while Israel was the obvious enemy of the Palestinians the government of Egypt’s head, Hosni Mubarak, was an unobtrusive enemy, but no less virulent and cold-blooded than the Israelis, if not more lethal and venomous. Mubarak seemed to be laying in wait for these activists. His storm troopers and Gestapo agents, armed with riot-gear and given the licence to crack down on anybody wanting to enter Gaza, were ready and trigger-happy. They wouldn’t allow anyone to disregard Mubarak’s edict of ‘no entry’ into Gaza from his ‘kingdom.’ The activists staged sit-downs and protested outside the western embassies. But that wouldn’t dent Mubarak’s resolve to make Gaza the biggest prison in the world, in cahoots with his pay-masters and mentors in the US and Israel.

Days before the human rights activists descended on Egypt, Mubarak’s soul-mate, Netanyahu, had paid a hurried visit to Cairo to confab with the US-Israeli lobby’s most redoubtable client in the Muslim world. The strategy to frustrate the activists from setting foot in Gaza was, apparently, worked out at this unholy summit.

But simultaneous with Mubarak stamping down on the already down-trodden Palestinians of Gaza, Egypt has unveiled plans of building an ‘iron wall’ over the whole length of its border with the Gaza Strip. This iron wall will be sunk 5 meters deep into the ground , and rise as much above it, to make it iron-clad and ensure that the besieged 1.5 million Gazans will no longer be able to dig underground tunnels — hitherto the only means available to them to bring in supplies from outside.

Mubarak’s iron wall will cost more than 225 million dollars. But that’s of no concern to him; the tab is going to be picked up by the Americans, who are as keen as the Israelis and the Egyptians to ensure that Gaza becomes hermetically sealed to the world. The wall has been designed by American engineers and they will also be building it.

The US-Israeli plan, which Mubarak has lapped up with relish, is to snuff out the last remaining residue of life out of the Palestinians of Gaza.

Commenting on Mubarak’s perfidy, Israel’s world-renowned peace activist, Uri Avnery, recalled recently that 80 years ago when Jews from Europe were being eased into Palestine under British patronage, the most rabid right-wing ideologue of Zionism, Vladimir Ze’ev Jabotinsky — who is revered by the American neocons and Zionists as their spiritual guru — had proposed an ‘iron wall’ between the Jews and the Palestinians. Who could have thought then that his dream would be realised at the hands of an Arab leader.However, this is neither the first instance of the hapless Palestinians being bitten by their Arab ‘brothers,’ nor is Mubarak the first Arab ruler to stab them in the back. The Arab history since the birth of Israel is littered with callous Arab rulers riding roughshod over Palestinian rights and freedoms to serve their own vested interests, and those of their western mentors and minders.

The ignoble series of Arab treachery against the Palestinians began with the First Arab-Israeli war in 1948 when ill-equipped rag-tag Arab armies were sent to face the well-armed Israelis and were thoroughly routed. As soon as the UN-enforced armistice came into effect, Jordan’s King Abdullah pounced on the West Bank and incorporated it into his Trans-Jordan Kingdom; he paid with his life for this treachery two years later.

In the 1967, six-Day War, the West Bank was presented to Israel on a platter as a result of tentative and highly flawed military strategy.

The ‘Black September’ massacre of the Palestinians in Jordan — in which Brigadier Ziaul Haq, then military adviser to King Hussain, played a pivotal role — touched another low in wanton violations of the Palestinian rights at the hands of fellow Arabs.

In the aftermath of the Gulf War of 1991, Kuwait deported every Palestinian resident as collective punishment for Yasir Arafat’s support for Saddam Hussain’s invasion and occupation of Kuwait.

Even today, oil-rich Arab states, together with Egypt and Jordan — all votaries of the West — are guilty of dividing the Palestinians with their unstinted backing of Mahmoud Abbas, the puppet President of PLO, at the expense of Hams in Gaza.

With their Arab ‘brothers’ constantly stabbing them in the back, the Palestinians don’t need Israel, or US and Europe, for enemies.

AWAVE of public concern swept through Pakistan over the news of clandestine activities of the US contractor DynCorp International that has been reportedly engaged by the Pentagon to ostensibly provide security to US diplomatic personnel.

Their presence remained unnoticed until some ugly episodes occurred in Islamabad and Peshawar where DynCorp operatives, in violation of Pakistani laws, publicly displayed weapons, roughed up Pakistani citizens and were let go under instructions from the ministry of interior. The resulting uproar led to uncovering the record of DynCorp and Blackwater, US military contractors, which are suspected to be linked. Their activities in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan turned out to be very disturbing.

Blackwater faces legal proceedings in the US for crimes such as murder, manslaughter, weapon smuggling, use of unnecessary, excessive and unjustified deadly force against civilians, etc. Five Blackwater employees await trial on manslaughter charges and a sixth has already pleaded guilty to manslaughter and attempting to commit manslaughter in the aftermath of the September 16, 2007 Nisour Square shootings in Baghdad, which left seventeen Iraqis dead.

Blackwater is accused of using weapons in Iraq not authorised by the US authorities for unnecessarily killing scores of innocent Iraqis. Ammunition illegally obtained from LeMas, an American company, designed to explode after penetrating human body was frequently used to inflict maximum damage. The present Iraqi government has consequently outlawed Blackwater.

New York weekly The Nation reports that founder of Blackwater, Erik Prince, was being investigated in connection with the murder of an ex-employee. According to this publication two former Blackwater employees have recently deposed in a federal court that Prince “views himself as a Christian crusader tasked with eliminating Muslims and the Islamic faith from the globe,” and that his companies “encouraged and rewarded the destruction of Iraqi life.”

The employees also alleged that Blackwater was involved in smuggling of unlawful weapons in Iraq in Prince’s private planes. These and other charges were filed as part of a motion by lawyers for Iraqi civilians suing Blackwater for alleged war crimes and other misconduct.

Blackwater’s role and activities recently became the subject of debate in Washington amid disclosures that CIA used Blackwater to locate and assassinate leaders of Al Qaeda in Pakistan. Lawmakers were outraged on such a task being outsourced to a private contractor.

Congressman Dennis Kucinich, member of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, who is investigating Prince and Blackwater since 2004, said, “If these allegations are true, Blackwater has been a criminal enterprise defrauding taxpayers and murdering innocent civilians.” He said, “Blackwater is a law unto itself, both internationally and domestically.”

Blackwater went through a rebranding process in its twelve years of existence, changing its name and logo several times to conceal the bad name it earned. It created more than a dozen affiliate companies, some of which are registered offshore and whose operations are shrouded in secrecy to obscure wrongdoing, fraud and other crimes. It now operates as Xe Services LLC.

DynCorp’s activities in Pakistan also raised alarm when it reportedly bribed officials for licences to import prohibited weapons and secretly recruited and trained ex-SSG (army) personnel at Sihala, dangerously close to Pakistan’s nuclear installations, and at another location outside Islamabad. This fuels suspicion that the Pentagon has outsourced to this contractor the task of raising a private militia for multiple roles, including a rapid intervention team, with an eye on Pakistan’s nuclear assets. Earlier reports about a US team having flown into Dubai on its way to Islamabad for urgent intervention after receiving a false alarm about the loss of some nuclear material, lends credibility to fears that the US intends placing a rapid deployment team in Pakistan.

The New York Times (Dec. 2009) reported Blackwater’s covert role in the operation of American drones. “The operations are carried out at hidden bases in Pakistan and Afghanistan, where Blackwater contractors assemble and load Hellfire missiles and 500-pound laser-guided bombs on remotely piloted Predator aircraft”.

In an environment charged with strong anti-American sentiment and suspicions about US designs against Pakistan being rife, the activities attributed to Blackwater and DynCorp are a public relations disaster for the US Government and only adds to trust deficit between Pakistan and the US.

Until some time ago, the military-industrial complex played a major role in prodding the American leadership to create enemies and launch military conflicts around the world. This unholy alliance was recently joined by another player — the ‘Contractors’.

All US military campaigns and occupations now heavily rely on thousands and thousands of contractors, subcontractors and sub-subcontractors. Sara Flounders in her article “Obama’s War: Why is the Largest Military Machine on the Planet Unable to Defeat the Resistance in Afghanistan” says, “Their [Contractors’] only immediate aim is to turn a hefty superprofit as quickly as possible, with as much skim and double billing as possible. For a fee these corporate middlemen will provide everything from hired guns, such as Blackwater mercenaries, to food service workers, mechanics, maintenance workers and long-distance truck drivers”.

The Associated Press put their number in Iraq at 180,000 in 2007. In August 2008, Christian Science Monitor put their number at 190,000. Some corporations which have recently gained notoriety for war profiteering in Iraq and Afghanistan include Halliburton, Bechtel, Blackwater, Louis Berger Group, BearingPoint and DynCorp International.

Thomas Friedman, a noted columnist, warns of the dangers of a “contractor-industrial-complex in Washington that has an economic interest in foreign expeditions.” He says the pattern of outsourcing key tasks, mostly with scarcely audited money and instructions changing multiple hands, invites abuse and corruption.

Allison Stanger, in her book “One Nation Under Contract: The Outsourcing of American Power and the Future of Foreign Policy,” says the Pentagon outsources many key functions because it does not have enough soldiers, collaborators or allies to fight its wars. She says, “Contractors provide security for key personnel and sites, including our embassies; feed, clothe and house our troops; train army and police units; and even oversee other contractors.” So influential are some of these contarctors that they are often called America’s shadow government.

The implementation of US foreign policy responsibility overseas through sub-contracting is also assuming dangerous proportions. Eighty per cent of the State Department budget is spent through contractors and grants.

In this new arrangement of outsourcing, sometimes called the new form of public private partnership, the government transfers its sovereign functions to American enterprises for implementation of its functions or programmes in countries under occupation or at war, to fill the capability gap. But this creates a serious problem.

These enterprises are neither aware of the intricacies and compulsions of diplomatic norms that only the foreign service understands nor are they subject to clear and unambiguous lines of authority compared to those for their military colleagues. As a result, private contractors interpret policies and instructions of the departments of State and Defence their own way, at times even flouting them deliberately, thereby committing serious violations of law in countries where they operate.

When contractors for the Pentagon or other agencies are not properly managed — as when civilian interrogators committed abuses at Abu Ghuraib or members of Blackwater shot and killed 17 Iraqi citizens in Baghdad, it severely undermines the American position and mission objectives.

Pentagon has another motive for outsourcing its wars. This way it manages to hide the actual size of its occupation force and its casualties. For instance, according to U.S. News & World Report, Oct. 30, there are no records of thousands of Iraqis, Afghans and other migrant workers who were recruited by US contractors to do dangerous jobs and were killed. These deaths raised no eyebrows. Had the US troops been killed instead, the Pentagon would have had tough time justifying such high casualties.

For Pakistan the presence of contractors like DynCorp and Blackwater is an ominous sign. Lessons need to be learnt from Iraq and Afghanistan. It would be in Pakistan’s security interests to withdraw the blank cheque given to the US Embassy to set up an empire of its own under the garb of its security and demand that these rogue elements must leave. Pakistan cannot afford to compound the threat it faces from the TTP by allowing the Pentagon contractors to threaten its nuclear assets.

IN the last week of January, President Zardari categorically stated that local bodies elections in Karachi will be held "within three or four months" which means sometimes in April or May. The announcement came after a series of meetings with the MQM representatives in Islamabad and Karachi. The local bodies issue happens to be the biggest bone of contention between the PPP and the MQM in Sindh and the latter has been very uncompromising in its support of the Musharraf-era local bodies system.

During the last quarter of 2009, two very sad events took place in Karachi which may leave their mark on the future course of events. The first, chronologically, was an altercation on the plotting and sale of land which was in the limits of a public park in Old Golimar area contiguous with Lyari. This turned into a full-fledged confrontation between the PPP and the MQM having distinct ethnic overtones, resulting in serious damage to life and property.

Civic life was disturbed for more than a week in the area. The official version of the incident, as given out by Mr Rehman Malik was a politically expedient fairy tale. President Zardari, during one of his trips to Karachi, brokered a compromise which helped defuse the tension temporarily.

The second and the most regrettable incident was the explosion in the Ashura procession on M.A.Jinnah road which was followed by well organised looting and arson in the biggest wholesale market in Pakistan. The indifference and inefficiency of the law enforcement agencies during the entire episode is sufficiently documented on city government’s footage aired by various TV channels.

It was also during the last quarter of 2009 that political activity in Karachi picked up its pace with all the political parties in Sindh holding rallies and mass meetings, no doubt keeping their eye on the forthcoming local bodies election. The rallies staged by the coalition of nationalist parties are noteworthy since this is the first time that they have made their presence felt on the political scene in Karachi.

The ANP also held a public meeting though their political presence is in evidence in Karachi. Elections in Karachi are a very complex affair; they are contested on the basis of ethnicity, clans, religious sects and political affiliation.

Therefore any phenomenon that affects these factors will certainly affect the outcome of the polls one way or the other. Karachi has a long history of violence and a cursory glance at the past happenings would reveal that every round of violence has resulted in tangible changes in the political scene.

It is in this milieu that the clashes in Orangi Town and its neighbourhoods have been taking place causing great damage to life and property. What we see now is the killing of poor innocent people seen busy in the struggle to win their daily bread, and the loss of property acquired with the sweat of their brow. The political leaders and leaders of the ‘civil society’ will, as usual, express grief and condemn the incident, appeal for peace, and come forth with impractical suggestions to solve the problem of violence in Karachi. Soon, it will be business as usual till the next round.

The most important question here is the process under which political differences degenerate into hostile acts of violence leading to murders and arson. Any person of average intelligence can understand that the use of fire-arms as a means of terrorising the rivals and recalcitrants is a reflection of fascistic mindset that operates at this level.

These elements do not understand the transient nature of political ascendency acquired in this fashion. Sadly, in our political culture, this attitude is a common denominator in most political parties. One can say that this mindset is a legacy of the prolonged periods of military dictatorships in Pakistan's history.

But the stunted and warped political culture that is a product of authoritarian rule needs to be changed if there is to be meaningful politics in the country. To tolerate dissent and bear with a different opinion is an essential requirement of democracy.

Similarly, winning and losing seats in any election is important but not something to place the survival of the democratic system, such as it is, itself at stake.

The solution of a problem depends on taking ground realities as the starting point. There are many solutions floating around, as it happens every time a crisis of this nature occurs, such as, more stringent laws as if the Statue Book is devoid of the relevant laws. The fact is that there is a great void as far as implementation is concerned, whether it is due to indifference, inefficiency or insufficient manpower.

Then there is the question of de-weaponisation even if we turn a blind eye to the abysmal law and order situation and rampant crime in our society. What is there to stop the forces that supplied them with the arms in the first place, from rearming the lawless elements, even if, supposing for argument's sake, the de-weaponisation is hundred per cent successful.

There are other solutions going around as well but the two mentioned above are sufficient to illustrate the point. The problem though chronic has a very simple solution. The political parties in Pakistan must realise that their present conduct is responsible for determining the future course of history of the country.

If they themselves throw democratic norms overboard, how can they expect other institutions of the state to follow these democratic norms. Needless to say, the way things are in Pakistan, the leadership of all the political parties in Pakistan bear prime responsibility for resolving the issue in a democratic manner.

IN my previous article (‘In the pursuit of a welfare state,’ Encounter, January 24, 2010) I had added a cautionary optimistic note about prospects for democracy, provided the National Reconstruction Ordinance (NRO) did not become a source of a renewed tectonic politics in the country.

Several readers of the article have sent me cynical responses by suggesting how a political system that allows a man like Mr Asif Ali Zardari to become president can be expected to produce good results for the country. The problem has arisen mainly because what may be called an historical anomaly that was created in the constitutional system of the country.

The supporters of Mr Zardari never tire of reminding the people that he is a constitutionally elected president. The answer of course may be yes and no, depending on which constitution one is referring to. The 1973 Constitution is an integrated document. It provides for the election of the president, by a joint session of the parliament, who is envisaged as a symbol of the nation and who acts on the advice of the prime minister.

The prime minister is elected by the parliament and is answerable to that body, and runs the government with the help of his cabinet. The judiciary is independent to do its business in accordance with the responsibilities as defined in the constitution. The decisions of the courts are final and must be obeyed. The judges are appointed by the president (who always acts on the advice of the prime minister, who is answerable to the parliament). Thus the circle closes.

This represents a parliamentary system and resembles the systems as they exist in many other countries. Some Pakistani legal wizards have dragged the concepts of trichotomy or dichotomy of power in their recent discussions about the Supreme Court judgments, which is a phoney issue in the context of the parliamentary system. Separation of institutions — the senate, the house, the president, the executive (administration), and the Supreme Court — as embedded in the US constitution is irrelevant for parliamentary democracy.

The 1973 Constitution was the product of compromise and consensus. Mr Z.A. Bhutto had to bargain, for example, with the religious parties to get his provisions about the democratic framework for the country in exchange for section 227 (`All existing laws shall be brought in conformity with Islam…`). The constitution does require a revisit for some updating of its provisions. But what it got instead was a complete distortion of its objectives, in letter and in spirit, from the past two military dictators.

The distorted document is the so-called amended 1973 Constitution, the basis of Mr Zardari`s election. He is `constitutionally` elected, then, in the same way as General Musharraf was `constitutionally` elected. But there is more to it.

General Ziaul Haq in his wisdom decided to enlarge the electoral college for the president, by adding elected members of the provinces to Section 41. But he spared himself from the amended section by declaring himself the president for the next five years by virtue of the charade of a referendum he had held in 1985. In 1988 his rule came to an abrupt end.

He appointed himself president, not to act in line with the 1973 Constitution, but by assuming extraordinary powers through his notorious PCO (Section 270 and the 8th Amendment). The original constitution then had been thoroughly mutilated to give a `legal` cover to dictatorial powers.

General Musharraf broadly followed in the footsteps of his predecessor and used his PCO as well as the 17th Amendment to become the `custodian’ of democracy in Pakistan.

Mr Zardari took over after General Musharraf was given an honourable departure, by using the same constitutional framework originally established by General Ziaul Haq. As a civilian candidate, and as co-chairman of PPP, he could take for granted the support from elected members of the PPP because the party discipline — not just a potential conflict of interest in the election procedure but a reality. That he is a people’s president, or that he was elected by a two-thirds majority of the electoral college should be taken with a grain of salt.

In the democratic systems, the presidents with extraordinary powers are as a rule directly elected by the general voters. The 1973 Constitution opted for the electoral system because, to repeat the point I have made above, it provided for a president only as a ceremonial office, a sign of unity. After having been elected through the existing system, therefore, his democratic commitment should have persuaded him to make the move to the next step without delay and ask the parliament to restore the status quo ante, in the spirit envisaged by Z.A. Bhutto, the founder of the PPP. In this context, the appointment of the standing parliamentary committee to examine the constitution is rightly viewed as a dilatory manoeuvre. The existing distorted constitution has thus created a serious imbalance in the functioning of the institutions closely linked with it. The post-PCO judiciary has come a long way from the doctrine of necessity, but the parliamentary setup that is being carried on remains in the framework of PCO, 8th and 17th Amendments, with section 270, further hyphenated with A, AA, and AAA still intact.

This is where the role of the judiciary in the NRO becomes relevant. The judgment had not only declared NRO unconstitutional but also outlined the mechanism to deal with the remedies available to the state. Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani, referring to the situation concerning Mr Zardari, recently announced in the parliament that the Supreme Court had exceeded its limits because the president enjoyed constitutional immunity.

After all, why make him the target, he added, when there are more than 8000 cases affected by the judgment.

First, it should be obvious that Mr Zardari’s status is not in any way equivalent to all the other NRO cases. Secondly, the court asked about the cases in Switzerland which were mysteriously terminated on behalf of the Government of Pakistan. The court may be optimistic about getting some light shed on the matter of misdemeanour of Mr Zardari, as they would be fishing in a deep hole with the itinerary of secret accounts and property deals perhaps as long as the devil’s tail spread across several countries.

A simple question arises: instead of focusing on the judgment, why not ask Mr Zardari how all this wealth accumulated during the last three decades relates to his legitimate earnings. Holding the highest public office in the country, he is expected to owe this explanation to the nation.

The interesting twist is that the defence against charges of corruption has now moved from being `politically motivated` to protection under a constitutional immunity. And about this immunity, the same argument should really apply to Mr Zardari as it would to General Musharraf. Both were elected through the same electoral college and same constitutional system.

In fact, the paradox is not that the Supreme Court had to deal with a difficult challenge. It is that Mr Zardari did not offer to take a leave absence and get the charges against him cleared.

The issue is not going to go away, nevertheless. The public focus may be blunted somewhat if he should decide to abide by the original constitution and act as president in the spirit underlined in that original constitution. The image and perception count a lot in political life and controversy about his credibility will continue to haunt him to the end of his term.

The country is faced with two serious crises: a weak economy and a continuing threat to national security. It is the duty of the governing party to pursue an active legislative agenda, with a strong and vigorous opposition to promote effective governance in the parliamentary tradition. One can draw a parallel with some other countries, especially in Southeast Asia. There is a silver lining at the end of the tunnel. The next general elections, provided they are free and fair, might produce better results, for all major parties in the country.

PAKISTAN is currently facing acute shortage of water including reduced outflow of water from Tarbela Dam which is adversely affecting the agriculture sector. According to experts’ estimates, shortage during the Rabi crop could go up to 35 to 40 per cent.

People are already facing worst ever high prices of flour, rice and sugar which are the basic necessities of the population including 35 per cent extreme poor who can hardly afford to buy them. Experts say that in order to overcome the shortage of water the requirement is to build a Tarbela-type dam (world’s largest rock filled dam) after every seven years. But since 1976, the year Tarbela dam was built, Pakistan has not been able to construct even a single major dam due to political discord among the provinces over Kalabagh dam and lack of visionary leadership.

Musharaf regime opted to build Bhasha dam considering it less contentious than other five dams as part of ‘water vision 2025’, to overcome the issue of water and power shortage when its hope to seek consensus on Kalabagh Dam diminished. Diamer-Bhasha dam is designed to possess tremendous capacity to produce much needed electricity and provide water; it will have 12 power generating units with a capacity of 375 MW in a year and expected to produce 19,000 GWH. It will be the highest roller-compacted dam in the world with a height of 272 M.

Its gross capacity will be 7.3 million acre feet (MAF). It is located about 120 km downstream of its confluence with the Gilgit River in the Diamer District of Gilgit-Baltistan. The cost of the project is estimated to be over $12 billion. The dam could significantly help overcome power shortage and meet the long standing need for a water reservoir for irrigation purpose. Federal minister for water and power Raja Pervez Ashraf said on January 4 that “work on Diamer-Bhasha dam will begin this year and the Asian Development Bank (ADB) had given assurance of financing the project”.

However, Bhasha dam, which was later named Diamer-Bhasha Dam to appease the people of Gilgit-Baltistan, is not free from contentions. It seems that the political elite who have been exploiting Pakistan for more than six decades are again going to make a big mistake and the dam may not be materialised.

The reason is that the regime has for long been ignoring and undermining the rights of the people of Gilgit-Baltistan simply because they have shown strong resistance to the proposed dam for it will submerge long tracks of scarce agricultural land in Diamer District where food security has already become a major issue. Secondly, it will displace more than 80,000 people of Gilgit-Baltistan and their future status has not yet been decided. And, there is no agreement yet on compensation plans. Thirdly, the adverse implications of the dam on socio-environmental conditions of Gilgit-Baltisatn have already been acknowledged internationally. Fourthly, the construction work would draw large numbers of outsiders to Gilgit-Baltistan while under the ‘state subject rule’ outsiders are not allowed to settle in the disputed regions. Fifthly, the proposed site of the dam, according to the experts, is located in the sensitive seismic zone, and any earthquake of the scale that struck Azad Kashmir in 2005 would be disastrous for the entire region.

The fundamental issues are location of the dam and rights of royalty. Construction of the dam will inundate and displace the people only in the Gilgit-Baltistan, while the power turbines are said to be located in the NWFP in the region of Kohistan, Bhasha. However, the ownership and boundary demarcation is disputed and the people of Gilgit-Baltisatn historically have a claim over Bhasha but the government of Pakistan’s unilateral declaration of Bhasha being part of the NWFP is igniting anger.

In the eyes of the people of Gilgit-Baltistan it is a conspiracy to deprive them of the royalty of the Dam. While water available from the reservoir on the one hand will inundate thousands of acres of land in Gilgit-Baltistan, it will, on the other hand, not provide water for a single acre in the region and all water will go downstream in Pakistan. Although it is announced that the royalty will be shared but the NWFP government has already decided not to share the amount of royalty with Gilgit-Baltistan.

The dam is fiercely opposed by the people of Gilgit-Baltistan and the decision of Economic Coordination Council of Pakistan and recent announcement by Raja Pervez Ashraf to build the Bhash Dam has come as a shock to them. They have long standing reservations over the issue for they have been condemned to six decades of deprivations and alienations by the successive governments in Pakistan. People of the GB have no say in the affairs relating to governance of the region and have, therefore, raised the issue at international forums.

The World Bank has already declined to provide much needed funds and another major investor, China, has also reportedly refused to fund this dam. If the World Bank, which represents the western powers, and China, one of the most potential investors in Pakistan, are unwilling to fund the construction of the dam, it would be hard to find any other multilateral organisation willing to provide assistance. It seems the project will suffer the same fate as did the Kalabagh Dam.

There is a growing opposition to the dam at international level. India’s opposition is understandable for according to the UN the area of Gilgit-Baltistan is a disputed region between Pakistan and India. But the federal minster for information and also Governor of the GB Mr Qamaruzzaman Kaira says that ‘not a single voice was raised by the people of the Northern Areas (Gilgit-Baltistan) against this project (Diamer-Bhasha Dam)’, in response to a question of an activist of Gilgit-Baltistan.

If the government and the political elite of the country are serious about the dam, they must first decide the fate of Bhasha which historically belongs to Gilgit-Baltistan. This is the major hurdle in the way of the construction of the dam. If Bhasha goes to Gilgit-Baltistan the construction would become easier because it will automatically resolve the second major issue of dispute over royalty. The royalty then will go to the people of Gilgit-Baltistan who would be uprooted because of the construction of the dam. Thirdly, government should chalk out a clear and transparent resettlement plan for the 80,000 displaced people, and compensation be arranged for the tracks of land which would be inundated.

If the political elite of Pakistan can appreciate concerns of the people, then the problems like these may not arise. What Pakistan needs is electricity and water. By solving the contentious issues of border demarcation, royalty, resettlement and compensation plan, regarding Diamer-Bhasha Dam and treating Gilgit-Baltistan with dignity which it deserves, Pakistan can overcome several problems.