| December 15, 2001 | Saturday | Ramazan 29, 1422 |
Please Visit our Sponsor (Ads open in separate window)
Attack in New Delhi
Murder in cold blood
ONE must join issue with Lt.-Gen (Rtd) Tanvir Naqvi when he says that the army has “the right” to amend the Constitution. Speaking on the BBC, the chief of the National Reconstruction Bureau, however, tried to soften the impact of his remarks by saying that the government was not going to amend “the whole Constitution.” This evades the real issue, which is: does the army have a right at all to amend the nation’s basic law?
Since 1958, this nation has seen repeated violations of the sanctity of one Constitution after another. Iskandar Mirza and Ayub Khan abrogated the 1956 Constitution; Yahya Khan the 1962 one. Ziaul Haq disfigured the 1973 Constitution, made the president omnipotent and rendered the prime minister virtually impotent. The most perverse of his arbitrary amendments was to insert clause 58-2(b) in the Constitution. It gave him the right to dismiss a government even if it enjoyed the confidence of the National Assembly. In 1988, Mohammad Khan Junejo wanted to take action against those involved in the Ojhri camp disaster. Fearing possible action against some military high-ups, Ziaul Haq used this clause to protect the army’s vested interests by dismissing the Junejo government and dissolving the National Assembly.
Since the October 12 military take-over, this government has behaved, relatively speaking, with greater circumspection, and worked within the parameters of the Supreme Court’s decision of May 2000. This judgment gave the generals three years in which to hold elections and restore the democratic system. It also authorized the Chief Executive to make changes in the Constitution provided they were not of a fundamental nature. With the general election now only ten months away, one wonders why the government wants to amend the Constitution at this late stage of its tenure. One motive could be to ensure the army’s supremacy over the civilian government in a future set-up. This could be achieved through an amendment that institutionalizes the existing National Security Council. This is a dangerous move and will not serve Pakistan’s long-term interests.
Subordinating the elected civilian government to the military is an abhorrent concept. It defies the fundamental principle that the people are the real sovereigns and that they exercise this power through elected governments responsible only to elected parliaments. Subordinating them to the military would mean a nullification of the people’s sovereignty. Moreover, in a military-dominated NSC, it is the generals’ will on a given issue that will prevail, even if the civilian leadership has reservations about it. This will lead to perpetual tensions between the politicians and the military and be a source of political instability. Perhaps the only possible change that could serve some useful purpose is a re-introduction of 58-2(b) in a modified form. The amended clause could authorize the president to dismiss a government, instead of dismissing both the government and the assembly. Alternatively, he could ask the incumbent prime minister to seek a fresh vote of confidence or require the assembly to elect a new leader of the House. This would ensure against the trauma this nation repeatedly suffered when three presidents misused the clause for political purposes.
A constitution is a sacred document. It lays down the principles of inter-action among the state’s three organs and creates conditions for reinforcing the state’s organic unity. Playing with the constitution means playing with the state and the destiny of the people. While every constitution must be flexible enough to respond to critical situations and exigencies, amending it arbitrarily or for expedient reasons would only weaken the state’s basic framework as Pakistan’s own experience shows. Ultimately, it is the people’s representatives who should decide when and how the Constitution is to be amended in the nation’s larger interest.
THE daredevil suicide attack on the parliament building in New Delhi was a senseless act of terrorism that deserves universal condemnation. Twelve persons, including five heavily armed attackers and six security personnel, were killed following a prolonged shoot-out outside the building where at least 100 parliamentarians were present. No one has so far claimed responsibility for this act of terror. The Indian media, meanwhile, has expressed amazement at the lax security measures at such a sensitive location and called for a high-level inquiry. The incident brought back memories of a similar attack on the assembly building in Srinagar in October, which left 38 persons dead. President Parvez Musharraf has condemned the attack in unequivocal terms, and stated that he was deeply saddened by the loss of lives. Representatives of pro-independence Kashmiri groups, including the All Parties Hurriyat Conference and the Muttahida Jihad Council, have also denounced the attack and dissociated themselves from it.
Such statements, however, are not likely to placate hardliners among India’s ruling BJP government who have been clamouring for strong action against what they term as Pakistan-sponsored terrorism. Following the most recent attack, incensed BJP parliamentarians have urged Prime Minister Vajpayee to follow “the US model on terrorism,” and pursue a proactive, hot pursuit policy against militants. Many of the same hardliners have long demanded that India should launch attacks across the Line of Control to clamp down on what they describe as cross-border terrorism. The Indian prime minister has so far remained sensibly non-committal in the face of such demands. It is hoped that he is able to maintain this equanimity and not succumb to pressure from the hawks within his own ranks who seem keen to exploit the latest incident to score anti-Pakistan points. Indo-Pakistan relations remain brittle and at a low ebb. It would be extremely unwise to use the latest attack in New Delhi to raise temperatures in the region and move towards another round of debilitating confrontation. With a war raging in Afghanistan and the Middle East in flames once again, the last thing the world needs now is a renewed confrontation between two nuclear powers in South Asia.
THE slaying of 37 fleeing Arab fighters by anti-Taliban tribal forces south of Kandahar adds yet another gory chapter to the litany of war crimes in Afghanistan. Travelling in a convoy with their wives and children, the fighters were waylaid by anti-Taliban forces. The men were singled out and shot dead in front of their wives and children.
The surrender of Kandahar was negotiated by none other than Hamid Karzai, the chief of the interim authority, and one would have thought that some semblance of order would have been in place by now. This does not seem to be the case. If the new administration is serious about gaining the trust of the Afghan people and if it wants to present itself as a unifying authority, then it must ensure the rule of law. Mr Karzai must unequivocally speak out against such atrocities and his forces should try to apprehend and punish those who murdered those 37 men.