VIEW: What the visits mean —Amit Ranjan - Tuesday, October 26, 2010

Source : http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2010\10\26\story_26-10-2010_pg3_5

It is in the interest of the two South Asian regional powers to take the lead in resolving the crisis in Afghanistan through political means but not at the cost of their own security. They should use a regional platform to address this problem and not be browbeaten by the US

India-Pakistan relations, since the partition of the subcontinent in 1947, have been manufactured in the policy-making industries of western countries. They have successfully dictated their terms over the policy-making process in two South Asian nuclear rivals and have also effectively decided about the nature of the relationship between them. The scheduled visit by US President Barack Obama to the subcontinent in November is a part of this decades-old policy of the superpowers to dictate their terms to the subcontinent. The recent two rounds of inconclusive talks, which took place between India and Pakistan, without any reason and agenda, were covertly directed and dictated to by the US.

Barack Obama will be the first US president to pay a visit to the subcontinent in his first term. This is not due to the growing importance of the region but rather to compel India and Pakistan to work together as an agent of the US to fulfil its political, economic and military interests in Afghanistan. In the past, whenever US presidents have paid a visit to this region, they have provided economic aid to the countries and have made different statements in different countries. After their return to the White House, some of them have even forgotten the texts of their statements. All of them, on their visits to the subcontinent, have consistently emphasised the importance of democracy and peace between India and Pakistan. However, it is the US and its cohorts that have supported military dictators to lead coups and remain in power by destabilising the civilian governments in Pakistan. They are also responsible for the arms race in South Asia, which has perpetuated continuous tensions between India and Pakistan.

Various terror groups that are creating havoc today have mushroomed from time to time due to the erstwhile policies of the US-led western allies towards South Asia. They groomed poor youngsters to fight the US’s war against the invasion of Afghanistan by the former USSR in the 1970s-80s. These teenagers were told to fight to save their co-believers from the atheist invaders; in the name of Islam they were misled by the Pakistani government and Pashtun leaders. Once the US’s aim was fulfilled, they left these talibs on their own. This led to an emergence of anti-Americanism among the people, an emotion that was exploited by those who wanted to channel the energy of these youths for their own self-interest. Thus, the problem started and the perpetrators and victims both were the innocent people of the subcontinent.

After the sheer negligence of South Asian regional powers in almost all decision-making processes relating to Afghanistan, the US administration has realised their importance to use them to fulfil its own self-interest. At present, India is their pet favourite and also a military power in the region. It can do what the US-led ISAF is doing in Afghanistan. It is also one of the largest investors in Afghanistan. Therefore, it is very easy to persuade India to send its military to safeguard its own economic interests. India can also be used by the US on the pretext that it is facing the menace of terrorism, which has its base in Afghanistan. The Indian people can be easily persuaded but, in reality, if the Indian army goes in to Afghanistan, then it will protect the material and military interests of the US.

Pakistan is already fighting a half-battle that was started by the US on its border areas with Afghanistan. Due to the ongoing war in Afghanistan and the Pakistani military’s response in support of the US, the whole state is being disturbed and is in the grip of terror groups. With overt military interference in Afghanistan, Pakistan is going to suffer the most because of the influence of the Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) and the presence of a massive anti-American constituency in Pakistan.

It is in the interest of the two South Asian regional powers to take the lead in resolving the crisis in Afghanistan through political means but not at the cost of their own security. They should use a regional platform to address this problem and not be browbeaten by the US. In the last SAARC summit, which was held at Thimphu, the member states following the charter (which does not allow the member states to comment on the internal problems of others, even if that has grave consequences for the entire region), did not raise their concerns over the ongoing crisis in Afghanistan. It is not that the member states have earnestly followed the charter; rather they have used it whenever they wished to criticise their regional rivals from that platform, but seldom has this platform been used by them for constructive work in the region.

There is a saying: ‘Once bitten, twice shy.’ The leadership in the subcontinent has failed to learn and understand the in-depth meaning of this phrase. They are still ready to fight the US-interest war in Afghanistan at their own cost. They seem to lack farsightedness and also do not want to learn from the history of the US role in the subcontinent, which always wanted to keep the region disturbed for its own interests. Policy makers from both countries are well aware that they are going to get bargains from the US administration. They are certainly going to receive monetary or military help from the US. But that help may prove to be disastrous to their long-term interests. This region is the most disturbed region in the world and in case the two countries militarily get engaged in Afghanistan, things are going to get even worse.

Finally, a caveat: the political leaderships of India and Pakistan must not get carried away by Obama’s words. They must acknowledge that in international politics the important thing is to protect the self-interest of a nation. Therefore, they must take cognisance of their long-term self-interest rather then blindly following the diktats from the White House and Pentagon. And their long-term interest is in maintaining a peaceful atmosphere in this volcanic region for their mutual development, growth and prosperity.

The writer is a PhD student at the South Asian Studies School of International Studies, Jawaharlal Nehru University. He can be reached at amitranjan.jnu@gmail.com

COMMENT: Democracy, not machinations, please —Shahab Usto - Tuesday, October 26, 2010

Source : http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2010\10\26\story_26-10-2010_pg3_4

The decades-old elitist machinations and opportunism have sapped the foundations of the state, germinating far deeper existential threats to it and to the citizens. Therefore, it is time to detach the state from the elitist clutches; let it breed a democratic culture that evolves a new grassroots leadership, modern social and political institutions, and a renaissance of peace and liberties

“Thank God the Supreme Court averted the grand finale with the government,” said a TV commentator reacting to the Supreme Court’s interim decision on the 18th Amendment. But when asked if it would guarantee smooth sailing between the two institutions, he could not answer. No one can, looking at the contentious issues, including that of presidential immunity, awaiting adjudication. So, one can only keep one’s fingers crossed wishing the country to steer out of the storms, the existing and the ones brewing in the boilers of national politics.

But for how long could a country of 18 million people keep its fingers crossed? Why can it not find lasting solutions to its recurring problems, learning from its own mistakes and others’ successes? And having seen numerous civilian governments being toppled by equally inept generals, in collusion with opportunistic politicians and compliant judges, on charges of corruption and misgovernance, why does its people/leaders not delve into the deeper aetiology of its malaise to find the right remedy?

These are the questions that wreck every mind whenever an elected government is faced with déjà vu — imminent dismissal on the same old corruption and inefficiency charges. And yet, neither the fellow politicians nor the dismissed rulers engage in serious introspection. Instead, soon they engage in Machiavellian conspiracies to dislodge the next government, in connivance with the same forces who sent them home or to jail.

And thus goes on the game of musical chairs in Islamabad, at the cost of stability and commonweal of the people. No one acknowledges and deals with the fact that all the elected governments have been caught in the same entrapments: myriad socio-political problems, perennial institutional disharmony, and unbearable external pressures.

The matrix of the current threats to the government remains the same.

Just look at the breadth of the current and the carried-forward socio-political issues: reconstructing one-fifth of the country’s infrastructure and rehabilitating 20 million flood affectees requiring around $ 30 billion as per the World Bank-Asian Development Bank report; reaccelerating the economy and stemming the rising tide of social and political discontent; enhancing governance and minimising corruption in the public sector (and the cabinets); protecting the people from the seemingly unstoppable countrywide terrorism and targeted killings in the country’s financial hub, Karachi; dealing with an eight-year-old insurgency in Balochistan; convincing the US, the mainstay of our economic and defence assistance, to stop the drone attacks on our soil; keeping the powerful establishment from derailing/weakening democracy; and last but not the least, maintaining a rickety coalition government alive in a political culture steeped in opportunism and corruption.

Also, count the rounds of institutional disharmony that have repeatedly sent the system into a tizzy. Leaving aside the traditional now-open-now-covert civil-military power struggle, the Supreme Court’s recent ‘restraining order’ passed on the unconfirmed media reports clearly points to the judiciary-government distrust that will further play out when the court’s obsessive pursuit of the Swiss cases reaches a logical end: adjudication on presidential immunity under Article 248. Would it not be a replay if this government/president were also sent home thanks to the strict ‘application’ of the law?

Likewise, the external pressures, as ever, continue to dominate the political system. The US is virtually sustaining the present setup and the fragile economy. Recently, President Obama patted the government’s back but also demanded action against the Haqqani network and Lashkar-e-Tayyaba. The US has also threatened to destroy “150 terrorist centres located in Pakistan” if it was attacked by terrorists traced to the country, which is another Damocles sword hanging over our heads. Taking the cue, the Indian prime minister has also called for a new defence strategy to fight the non-state actors who “enjoy patronage and sanctuaries”, an obvious reference to Pakistan.

Therefore, the omens are not good for internal order and regional peace. The expenditure on defence and law and order is bound to increase exponentially at the cost of the social sector. Already, 65 percent of tax revenue is spent on defence and yet last year Rs 200 billion were diverted from the development budget to military operations in Malakand. Which raises the question: with the economy already burdened with the enormous expenditure on the post-flood rehabilitation, who will pay the mounting security bill? The message from the US, the EU, and the Friends of Democratic Pakistan (FoDP) is clear: first, tax your own affluent classes and then ask the foreign taxpayers to help Pakistan.

Will our powerful elite pay their due share of taxes? Never.

Instead, the rural, urban and state elites would assign the same old recipe: seeking more loans, foreign and local, and thus shifting the burden of repayment to the common man who is already afflicted with high inflation and static wages. No wonder external debt and liabilities have phenomenally increased from $ 35.4 billion in 2005 to $ 40.3 billion in 2007 to the current $ 55.4 billion; and the bowl keeps going around. But, on the other hand, the tax-to-GDP ratio has dismally declined from 14 percent in the mid-1990s to the current nine percent.

Still, the elites are not ready to put the public finances in order and remove the myriad structural and policy ills that have kept all civilian governments, howsoever tainted and weak, inherently unstable and hence more prone to being decapitated or unseated. A host of civilian governments were dismissed during the 1950s and the 1990s. But the state never changed its nature and role as a vehicle of the oligarchic and autocratic interests, underpinned by dogmatism, coercion and fraud.

The decades-old elitist machinations and opportunism have sapped the foundations of the state, germinating far deeper existential threats to it and to the citizens. Therefore, it is time to detach the state from the elitist clutches; let it breed a democratic culture that evolves a new grassroots leadership, modern social and political institutions, and a renaissance of peace and liberties. To wit, get rid of all the wasteful conflicts, internal and external, jealously guard democracy regardless of the rulers’ failings, and institute an accountable, small but smart government.

Only then would the distracting debate on personal ethics that muffles the real issues of democracy, justice and peace become redundant and no intruder, inept or corrupt, can creep into the system through the bullet or Machiavellian brains.

The writer is a lawyer and academic. He can be reached at shahabusto@hotmail.com

VIEW: Tenure reforms an alternative to land reforms —Saroop Ijaz - Tuesday, October 26, 2010

Source : http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2010\10\26\story_26-10-2010_pg3_3

A more pragmatic and efficient response towards land reforms can be through tenure reforms by altering the relations between landlord and tenants. The choice of what type of land reforms should be brought about in a nation is an empirical question

A few days back the Muttahida Qaumi Movement (MQM) submitted to the National Assembly Secretariat a land reforms bill seeking distribution of large landholdings among small and landless farmers with the ostensible objective of ending feudalism and hereditary politics in the country. The bill said that the ceiling, i.e. maximum allowed landholding, should be fixed at 36 acres for irrigated and 54 acres for arid lands.

The two major attempts at land reforms in Pakistan were by Ayub Khan in 1959 and Zulfikar Ali Bhutto in 1972. Both land reforms failed to have the intended effect and did not significantly alter the situation pertaining to actual ownership of land. The policy model of both these reforms was identical to that proposed by the MQM, i.e. the imposition of a ceiling above which agricultural land will be expropriated by the state, with or without compensation, and subsequently redistributed among the landless peasants. The ceiling imposed by the 1959 reforms was 500 acres for irrigated land and 1,000 acres for barren land. The ceiling was reduced by Bhutto’s land reforms of 1972 to 150 acres of irrigated land or 300 acres of arid lands. The ceiling was further reduced to 100 acres of irrigated lands or 200 acres of un-irrigated land by another Act of 1977. The proposal by the MQM, though radical and in line with their anti-feudal stance, is misconceived as it fails to address the primary reasons that led to the failure of the previous efforts.

Recently, Zimbabwe under President Mugabe introduced radical land reforms starting from early 2000 and continuing to date. The seizure of and division of large farms into plots to be give to the people without the means to manage them properly has been a disaster for Zimbabwe’s economy, which like Pakistan’s is primarily agricultural.

The imposition of a land ceiling as a primary instrument was the cause of failure of previous attempts, and a more pragmatic and efficient response towards land reforms can be through tenure reforms by altering the relations between landlord and tenants. The choice of what type of land reforms should be brought about in a nation is an empirical question, and the political will providing impetus for that particular land reform is critical.

Tenure reforms are predicated upon the recognition of certain defects in the agrarian systems. The degree of alteration of the agrarian system is minimal even in theory. The tenurial reform is not immediately offensive to the ruling elites because of the minimal disruption and the costs implied by its seemingly modest aims. Tenure reforms are by no means a novel idea; various tenure reforms have been introduced in South Asia at different times.

The situation in Pakistan is unique in several aspects from many of the other reforms as the non-economic dimension of the land reforms in Pakistan is more pervasive in Pakistan as compared to many of the other South Asian states. Tenure reforms is an interventionist regulatory model with the primary aim of readjusting the terms on which non-owning cultivators hold the land without fundamental alteration of the social organisation of production. Tenure reforms are often less radical in terms of social and political changes but have significant effects on production and income distribution. Tenure reforms typically aim to provide tenants with security of tenure, protect them from eviction, fix rental value below market level, eliminate intermediaries and prohibit sub-leasing, thus regulating the relationship between the owner of the land and the sharecropper. The ultimate goal in land tenure improvement is to secure the ownership of land for the tillers of the soil.

Ownership of land consists of a set of legal rights that entitle the possessor of those rights to the land. Tenure reforms transfer most of those rights to the tenant and thus render the physical changing hands of the land area unnecessary. The security of tenure and incentive, which should be the cornerstone of any tenure reform, should include reasonable security of possession, relative freedom of use, the power to transmit and inherit rights (not necessarily title), a fair return either in product or value equivalent on his inputs of labour, capital and management, regardless of the legal nature of the holding, and finally a holding that can utilise an optimum labour and management effort from the cultivator, his family, and his power source.

The imposition of a ceiling is a theoretically perfectly justifiable position, but is contingent upon the pragmatic and political mandate to implement it. Present power distribution in Pakistan cannot be ignored in devising a strategy regarding what is to be done.

I do not contend that a tenure reform system in Pakistan is likely to succeed in isolation from other political and institutional changes but it is less radical than imposition of a ceiling or a mass scale nationalisation programme, and thus is relatively more pragmatic in implementation under the present institutional arrangements. A tenure reform would require corresponding changes in the bureaucracy, and the willingness to enforce these reforms. Tenure reforms are by no means independent of political will, and thus would depend upon sufficient political will to undertake these reforms, but it is easier to garner political will in Pakistan for tenure reforms as compared to radical land reforms. Amendments made in the legislation as proposed by the MQM would not be effective if on a macro level political will is absent. Nevertheless, in my opinion a tenure reform remains the most pragmatic and implementable land reform measure capable of meaningful change in land relations in Pakistan.

The writer is a lawyer practicing at Lahore and can be reached at saroop_ijaz@hotmail.com

VIEW: Radicalisation of educated Pakistani youth —Ishtiaq Ahmed - Tuesday, October 26, 2010

Source : http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2010\10\26\story_26-10-2010_pg3_2

A purely religious radicalisation may mean nothing more than the believers of a religion beginning to observe their religious duties strictly in accordance with some core ideas. However, if radicalisation entails politicisation of a religion, it becomes part of a power contest and evolves as an ideology

For researchers interested in keeping track of the trends and patterns pertaining to radicalisation, Talibanisation and the concomitant problems of violence and terrorism in Pakistan, the reports published by the Pak Institute for Peace Studies (PIPS), Islamabad, are invaluable source material. The September 2010 issue of its quarterly journal, Conflict and Peace Studies, includes among other items a sophisticated survey of the perceptions of educated youth towards radicalisation.

Pakistan had 113 mainstream universities and 1,371 degree colleges in the country in 2007, where 424,271 and 324,988 students were enrolled, respectively. The research design based on an extensive field study uses a questionnaire to elicit the views of educated youth from both rural and urban backgrounds on radicalisation. The investigation is limited to students of postgraduate colleges and universities. Using sophisticated sampling techniques, the views of students from 16 public and private universities and postgraduate public colleges across the country were solicited.

The findings are most interesting and illuminating. The respondents overwhelmingly considered religion an important factor in their life (92.4 percent), though 51.7 percent said that they do not offer prayers regularly. More than half (55.8 percent) insisted that religious values were critical to Pakistan’s progress. While 51.3 percent endorsed the country’s hybrid legal system in which shariah is one, but not the only, source of law, 28.2 percent were of the view that religion should be the only source of law in Pakistan. Some of the findings are confusing. For example, while a significant majority of the respondents from Punjab (76.5 percent) believed that religious values were critical for the country’s progress, a much smaller number of respondents from Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (36 percent) and FATA (53.8 percent) agreed with them. Nonetheless, the view of 50 percent of the respondents from Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and 61.5 percent from FATA was that shariah must be the only source of law in the country.

With regard to whether religio-political parties should get a chance to rule the country, the respondents were divided equally: 42.6 percent endorsed the idea and 42 percent opposed it. A positive indication noted in the survey was that 77.8 percent of male respondents acknowledged that women had the same rights as men, while 95.9 percent stated that women should receive an education and 75.7 percent that they should have the opportunity to work. But most of the respondents (65.5 percent) also thought that women should veil outside their homes: males 71.3 percent and females 57.1 percent.

A majority (79.4 percent) of the respondents thought that the Pakistani Taliban did not serve the cause of Islam. Most of the respondents (85.6 percent) believed that suicide bombings were prohibited in Islam. The majority of the respondents (61.7 percent) supported military operations in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and the Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA).

The survey does not offer a definition of radicalisation, taking for granted that its meaning is self-evident. That is somewhat unsatisfactory. The dictionary meaning of radical is simply “going back to the roots”. Radicalisation is, therefore, a process through which the movement towards the pristine takes place. A purely religious radicalisation may mean nothing more than the believers of a religion beginning to observe their religious duties strictly in accordance with some core ideas. However, if radicalisation entails politicisation of a religion, it becomes part of a power contest and evolves as an ideology. In such circumstances, it forfeits its claims to being purely a spiritual transformation concerned with metaphysical objectives. It becomes an ideology concerned with the distribution of scarce resources, power and status on earth and may even make tall claims to rewards in the hereafter. Such radicalisation calls for a rational critique of its consequences and outcomes.

The fact that 92.4 percent opined that religion was an important factor in their life is an interesting finding. Such personal radicalisation is unproblematic as long as it serves as a moral and ethical radar to make sense of life’s meaning and purpose. For liberals and democrats there should be no problem is respecting such radicalisation. However, as soon as radicalisation impinges on the rights of individuals and carries implications for the legal and political system, there is need to be more critical.

Perceptions are a product largely of a priori socialisation and indoctrination. There is no doubt that the phantom of General Ziaul Haq’s so-called Islamisation continues to haunt the lives of educated youth at the highest educational centres of Pakistan. Such Islamisation was contradictory and schizophrenic, and so are some of the views of Pakistan’s highly educated youth. That a majority believes that parallel systems of law should apply in Pakistan is an example of this. There is considerable scholarly material showing that legal systems are underpinned by distinct philosophical and moral and ethical values and to apply different systems is to apply conflicting moral and ethical values.

What is perhaps controversial is the PIPS report describing the findings on women as “a positive indication”! When we were at the university, students who believed that women should have equal rights were also convinced that they should work alongside men. To imagine someone veiled from head to foot working, sounded patently incongruent. That is not the case with the report under discussion. A majority of not only male students but even female students favour veiling. The report does not mention if it means that men and women should also work in segregated milieus, but I suppose that is implicit in any notion of veiled working women.

It is heartening to note that nearly 80 percent of respondents were opposed to the Taliban, and an even greater majority considered suicide bombing prohibited in Islam. Processes of higher education generally do produce enough good sense and awareness not to succumb to extremist ideas, but exceptions are always there. On the whole, higher education means that the chances of having a good life and a good income improve and thus also the value of life.

Individuals such as Aafia Siddiqui and Faisal Shahzad are an exception to the rule. Faisal Shahzad may believe he knows what awaits him when he enters paradise, but the benefits due to women in that abode of boundless plenty remain unclear. I have discussed this with many ulema, but never got a satisfactory answer. Perhaps someone can elaborate it for us in a Daily Times op-ed.

The writer is a Professor Emeritus of Political Science, Stockholm University. He is also Honorary Senior Fellow of the Institute of South Asian Studies, National University of Singapore. He can be reached at billumian@gmail.com

EDITORIAL: The great expectation - Tuesday, October 26, 2010

Source : http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2010\10\26\story_26-10-2010_pg3_1

The development most telling about the US’s unchanged stance vis-à-vis North Waziristan (NW) in the recently conducted session of the Pak-US strategic dialogue was its grant of $ 2 billion in military aid. Supposedly a no-strings-attached aid package, the money is a guarantor of one thing: the US’s greatest expectation. A full-scale army offensive in NW before the July 2011 US withdrawal date is what the US is looking for. To think that a hefty aid package does not carry the weight of expectations amounts to fooling oneself. That is why Foreign Minister Shah Mehmood Qureshi’s statement at a press conference after his arrival from Washington fails to inspire belief. Saying that Pakistan will work on its own “timeline” to fight the militants currently being given safe havens near the Pak-Afghan border will not go down well with the US, despite its reiteration at the dialogue that Pakistan is its “strongest” ally in this war. Such statements reflect that the civilian government has bought into GHQ’s formula on NW. The fact that the $ 2 billion will be made available (if approved by Congress) in 2012 gives the Americans plenty of time to sit back and watch how far Pakistan will go in its counter-insurgency efforts in NW. There are many rationalisations that the Pakistan Army may be able to bank upon to postpone the offensive further, such as the onset of winter and how the formidable terrain in NW will not allow an operation in harsh conditions. However, winter will surely fade, but US expectations will not. Such is the nature of the NW conundrum, one that comes with it a $ 2 billion price tag.

In all the years since 9/11, the great superpower has been unable to prevail in getting Pakistan’s dual policies — introduced by Musharraf when he agreed to hand over al Qaeda to the US but secretly nurtured the Afghan Taliban to gain a strong foothold in Afghanistan — changed. That is because the Pakistani military has played its cards exceptionally well, knowing that without its cooperation, any US plans for Afghanistan were bound to crumble. Hence the US’s immutable carrot and stick policy, of which this $ 2 billion is the latest lure. The $ 7.5 billion approved in the Kerry-Lugar Bill is also one of the US’s many carrots.

As far as Pakistan is concerned, the country has a militant onslaught on its hands, with the Afghan Taliban’s safe havens slowly giving the US reason to apply pressure, the Pakistani Taliban (TTP) attacking urban and religious centres all over the country and Punjabi militants coming out of the woodwork. The struggle against jihadis has become all-encompassing now as the theological/ideological nexus has gelled the ‘good’ and ‘bad’ Taliban together. For the military to differentiate between them and choose sides will be tantamount to putting the Pakistani state at risk. It has yet to be seen just what kind of operation will be launched in NW, and when.

The situation has come to a pass where the US needs to start leaving Afghanistan by July 2011 and Pakistan needs to start facilitating that departure by curtailing its support to the Afghan Taliban. The two sides must weigh all the odds. If both stick to their guns, the withdrawal may be postponed and the region will continue to remain unstable.

Unfortunately, the strategic dialogue seems to relay as much. Both sides came to the table with their individual aims and objectives intact. Although the dialogue bridged the trust deficit somewhat, until the deep-rooted doubts and reliance on dual policies are erased, not much is likely to change. *

SECOND EDITORIAL: SCBA polls and dirty tricks

The Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) elections are to be held tomorrow (October 27) but it seems that a mudslinging campaign has been launched against one of the contestants for the post of SCBA president. Asma Jahangir, a renowned human rights activist and lawyer, is the target of a malicious campaign by her opponents’ dirty tricks ‘department’. A pamphlet titled ‘Asma Jahangir: Adalat-e-Uzma ke khilaaf targeted missile’ (Asma Jahangir: a targeted missile against the Supreme Court) is doing the rounds in the legal fraternity. The pamphlet has been published by a spurious group that goes by the name of Khatm-e-Nabuwwat Lawyers Forum.

The eight-page pamphlet has made some serious allegations against Ms Jahangir, most of which do not even need to be dignified with a response, but this sort of skulduggery has no place in an SCBA election. Someone of Ms Jahangir’s standing does not need any defending since her work speaks for itself. She has served as the chairperson of the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan (HRCP), UN Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Religion or Belief and UN Special Rapporteur on Extrajudicial, Arbitrary and Summary Executions. The motivated pamphlet questions why Ms Jahangir raises the issue of minority rights at international platforms when Pakistan’s minorities have equal rights and there is no threat to them. It appears that the Khatm-e-Nabuwwat Lawyers Forum are living in a delusional world because Pakistan is a country where the state is not separated from religion and where we have witnessed the worst kind of persecution of religious minorities and discrimination against ethnic minorities from the day it came into being. Over the years, Ms Jahangir’s progressive and bold views have angered the reactionary forces. The allegations that Ms Jahangir’s election campaign is being funded by India, the US and Israel are laughable to say the least. Labelling someone a RAW/CIA/Zionist agent is often the first resort of the religious bigots to discredit someone. The extremist forces think that they have a monopoly on patriotism but they need to be reminded of Ms Jahangir’s services to the country in the human rights, legal and policy fields. Raising women’s rights issues, asking for peace in South Asia, highlighting the missing persons cases, asking for a cut in the defence budget so that more money can be spent on the development of Pakistan, opposing religious extremism, etc, make Ms Jahangir not just a patriot but someone who has her priorities straight. Asma Jahangir is one of our most articulate and effective advocates of all that is desirable and indefatigable critic of what is wrong with our society.

Instead of indulging in character assassination, distortion of facts and propaganda, Ms Jahangir’s opponents should let there be a clean fight where the electorate will decide who becomes the next SCBA president. *

Good news at last - Kamran Shafi - October 26, 2010

Source : www.dawn.com

IT is one of the best pieces of news this year, yes, even more than the Supreme Court’s (SC) sagaciously and correctly signalling that parliament could legislate amendments to the constitution by not throwing the 18th Amendment or even a part of it out of court.

The news is that SP Ashfaq Anwar who had been deployed to provide security to the late and much lamented Benazir Bhutto has turned approver against other senior policemen suspected of having a hand, if not in her cold-blooded and horrific murder, at least in its criminal cover-up. SP Ashfaq has reportedly denied this impression.

The most damning of all is his allegation that, as we thought, it was none other than a senior police officer who gave the orders to hose down the scene of the crime almost immediately after the assassination, obliterating any and all forensic evidence that might have been collected from there as should have happened, and as does happen when the target(s) are not high-profile political leaders who are on the wrong side of the Deep State.

Cases in point: the suicide hit on the good and well-spoken of surgeon general of the army on The Mall in Rawalpindi when the road was closed off for a whole day, the hit on the bus carrying ISI personnel in Westridge when that road was closed off for several days; even when lawyers were hit by a blast in GPO chowk, Lahore.

The second most shocking revelation in his statement is that a plain SHO stood in the way of an autopsy on poor Benazir.

We are Pakistanis who have lived and grown old in this country — can we ever believe that a lowly inspector of police could on his own prevent the autopsy of as powerful a political leader as Benazir Bhutto? Or that a senior superintendent of police could order the hosing down the scene of the crime all on his own? No sirs, no!

Both the orders had to come from the very top because the people at the top apparently knew well that it was no suicide bomber whose detonation of his charge made Benazir fall down into the jeep and hit her head on the sun-roof lever so hard that her brains oozed out.

They knew that it was the pistol shooter, plainly visible in video-film record of the murder, who shot her in the upper left side of her neck, the bullet exiting from the right side of her head. I am sorry for being so graphic, reader, but what do you do other than kick the Deep State in the teeth when it not only is at least an accessory to a crime of this proportion, but takes us lay citizens for so many fools?

As an aside, how many of us remember Brigadier Cheema (I think his name was), trying to sell the theory of the lever at a press conference after being briefed by none other than a director of the Mother of All Agencies as he himself later admitted?

The man’s mouth was dry; he was groping for words; his hands were shaking, and he generally looked as if he had seen several ghosts a mere minute ago. What a sorry and shameful performance that was, by a hanger-on of a sorry and shameless dictatorship.

Why, you might ask, is it that I say that this is even better news than the SC judgment? Because, friends, far too many of Pakistan’s political leaders have been done to violent death without the perpetrators ever coming to justice. Start from Liaquat Ali Khan, go to Zulfikar Ali Bhutto and then to Benazir, and you will see the dark and dirty hands of the Deep State behind every one of those awful assassinations.

One hopes that the deposition of SP Anwar will be acted upon and that the case will reach a conclusion in a court of law, in which everyone even remotely connected with the case, no matter what their station at the time of the killing of that brave woman, will be questioned and if remotely suspect will be proceeded against. This country has seen enough bloody interventions by those that would not let democracy grow and prosper.

More good news: everything one reads about Bangladesh tells one that it is on the right path, forging ahead for the good of its people despite the fact that there is a lot yet to be done to raise the standard of its poor. But at least it has the basics right.

Its population growth rate seems to have stabilised. According to a recent article: “Today the average Bangladeshi woman bears fewer than three children in her lifetime, down from more than six in the 1970s.” Ours on the other hand is as high as it ever was, the mullah the greatest obstacle to birth control.

How well I remember an exchange with a friendly maulvi sahib when I asked why he was against controlling our spiralling population. “Hazur SAW ki fauj barhh rahi hai,” he said. Translation: “the armies of the Prophet (PBUH) are growing.”. Never mind that the armies that were growing were ill-fed and emaciated and shoeless. Armies that had neither food to eat nor potable water to drink. Well there we go.

But back to Bangladesh. The best news is that it is one of the six African and Asian countries to attain progress towards the achievement of its Millennium Development Goals to eradicate extreme poverty and boost health, education, and the status of women by 2015. Pakistan is nowhere near Bangladesh in this respect.

However, the passage in the report that affected me the most was a comparison of where Bangladesh and Pakistan whose part it was once upon a time stand: “In a way their best-known national heroes sum up the two country’s personalities. For Bangladesh, it’s Grameen Bank’s Nobel laureate Muhammad Yunus, synonymous with small loans to village women. For Pakistan: Abdul Qadeer Khan, the rogue nuclear scientist who peddled contraband technology to Libya, Iran and North Korea”. Before the Ghairat Brigades jump down my throat let me hasten to add that it was none other than the Commando who ‘outed’ A.Q. Khan to the world, not I.

kshafi1@yahoo.co.uk

VIEW: Basic structure myth —Yasser Latif Hamdani - Monday, October 25, 2010

Souce : http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2010\10\25\story_25-10-2010_pg3_5

Jinnah, however, is no longer relevant to Pakistan. Instead, one hears that Pakistan’s constitution, mangled, theocratic and moth-eaten after decades of military rule, has a basic structure that consists of independence of the judiciary, federalism, democracy and the Islamic provisions

Thank heavens the apex court in our country has shied away from answering the question of basic structure and binding, as it were, the dreams and aspirations of the future generations of this great state of ours to what is essentially a hackneyed idea.

Does the Pakistani constitution have a basic structure? Could the general will of a people be suspended cryogenically in a period of our choice? The founding father of this nation at least answered this question with an emphatic no when he vetoed a resolution by some Muslim League quarters to commit Pakistan to an Islamic polity. He sternly told them that this would amount to “censure” on every Leaguer and that the people of Pakistan alone would decide what their constitution would be.

Jinnah, I am told however, is no longer relevant to Pakistan. Instead, one hears that Pakistan’s constitution, mangled, theocratic and moth-eaten after decades of military rule, has a basic structure that consists of independence of the judiciary, federalism, democracy and the Islamic provisions. It is also contended that Article 2A is the basic structure of the Pakistani constitution. Article 2A makes the Objectives Resolution a substantive part of the constitution. The irony that it was introduced in contravention to all known principles of constitutional norms by a military dictator is entirely missed. It is the theocratic implication of 2A and the Islamic provisions that cause most alarm.

The basic structure arises essentially from a confusion of the Westminster parliamentary model and our eagerness to codify a constitution. Did Pakistan even need a written constitution? Should the state, that meant several things to several people, not have allowed an unwritten constitution with some basic documents to shape the conscience of the elected representatives of the people of Pakistan?

This is precisely why the only two other countries that follow this oddity are also from the subcontinent, though even their use is generally positive as opposed to the proponents of this idea in Pakistan. Bangladesh, for example, used the basic structure to oust the changes made to the constitution by military dictators. In Pakistan, it is argued that an Article introduced by a military dictator contains the basic structure. What is more is that it is downright undemocratic and in violation of the basic principles on which Pakistan was founded. Did those who want to impose a basic structure seek the consensus of Pakistan’s minorities for example, both religious and ethnic? The constitution of 1973 was, at best, a compromise document and not the absolute expression of the will of the people of Pakistan for all times to come. However, if it constitutes a firm position, parliament should not have the right to amend the constitution, and all amendments hitherto since 1973 should be declared void.

Consider the stock argument against secularism in Pakistan: the people of Pakistan do not want a separation of church and state and therefore Pakistan must be an Islamic state. It is a bad argument on many counts, not the least of which is that if Pakistanis do not want a strict separation of church and state, they do not want the church to dominate the state either. Most importantly, however, it does not quite follow that the people of Pakistan may have decided by majority rule to whom sovereignty over the entire universe belongs, yet they cannot by majority rule un-vest such vesting. Therefore, when the honourable Lord Chief Justice (CJ) of the Supreme Court (SC) of Pakistan rhetorically asked about the SC’s responsibility in case parliament declared Pakistan a secular state, people were naturally concerned. Surely, a parliament that can be trusted to decide who is a Muslim and who is not — usually a divine prerogative — cannot be stopped or limited. Or is it the position of the SC of Pakistan that the people of Pakistan have a wavering loyalty to Islam? That too would open a Pandora’s box for everyone concerned.

The imposition of the basic structure in Pakistan means that we should drop even the pretence of a constitutional democracy and become a full-fledged theocracy in the tradition of Iran with our own ‘Velayat-e-faqih’ (Islamic government) with the CJ of Pakistan enjoying the position of the grand rahbar and Ayatollah. I am sure the honourable CJ of the SC has no such ambitions. History will credit him for having saved democracy in Pakistan if he resists those who want him to become the grand mufti of Pakistan. One hopes that the democratic government of Mr Gilani will meet him halfway after the landmark decision on Thursday.

As for the basic structure theory, Pakistan’s constitution should have no basic structure save one basic principle and that is that Pakistan will treat all its citizens equally and without discrimination. Beyond that, no one has the right to bind our future generations to the ideas of today and yesterday. The constitution of Pakistan should always be what the people of Pakistan decide, as many times as they want to decide it.

The writer is a lawyer. He also blogs at http://pakteahouse.wordpress.com and can be reached at yasser.hamdani@gmail.com