| December 16, 2001 | Sunday | Ramazan 30, 1422 |
To send a letter to the Editor
Click here
Suhrawardy: a mistaken view
Objectives Resolution
Tax on second marriage
No distortion of history
New form of democracy
Size of constituency
Media manipulation
Internet cafes
Use of official jeep by police
Police reforms
No room for silent spectators
OSAMA bin Laden’s name has been circulated around the globe over and over again as the terrorist who masterminded the attack on the US.
Not for a moment do I hesitate to condemn the terrorist attack in New York resulting in the death of innocent civilians from 74 countries around the world and colossal damage. However, the multi billion dollar question is (as the war in Afghanistan has proved to be) was it OBL and the Al-Qaeda network and if not, who carried out this dastardly attack on the world’s only superpower.
By this terrorist attack, OBL or whoever is responsible has changed the lifestyle and approach of the US and Americans. They now have draconian laws. Human rights and civil rights are curtailed. Arrest and detention is permitted without a trial. The judicial system has been changed to provide a trial by emergency military courts in specified cases. People suspected of being involved in acts of terrorism or abetment thereof can be deported without a trial. Life will never be the same.
I am afraid that neither the destruction of the Taliban nor the destruction of OBL will yield positive results. Today OBL is America’s public enemy No. 1, a label which had earlier been pinned on several others. America has been involved in innumerable wars, invasions and attacks on countries. Its policies have resulted in deep antagonism in The Middle East, Far East and Africa. Its military and economic domination of the world has made matters worse although it is America which comes to the help of poor countries in times of crisis.
Let the US in pursuit of the rule of law present the evidence it has against OBL and seek an indictment. It can then take the legal and moral high ground to capture the indicted — not suspected—terrorists for an open trial before the International Court. The world must know who the terrorists are and what motivated them into committing this aggression. Until then, counter-aggression will not serve any useful purpose as the underlying cause will not have been addressed and removed. Until now only a privileged few are privy to this information or evidence about the terrorists.
The evidentiary value of a video tape now discovered accidentally in Kandahar which, according to the US spokesman, incriminates OBL, will have to be determined. Evidence must be evaluated in accordance with established principles of law.
The new emergency order passed by President Bush denies the right to counsel by a non-US citizen, including a greencard holder, who falls in the category of persons suspected to be a member of the Al-Qaeda or a person who has engaged in, aided, abetted or conspired to commit acts of international terrorism or in preparation thereof or harbours any person who falls in the above categories.
All such persons can be detained indefinitely and tried by a military court where the general principles of law and procedure applicable to criminal trials will not apply.
Will such a law prevent any further attacks by unknown terrorists or does the US administration believe that terrorists with similar aims are in the US in the form of aliens — non-US citizens — or is it an advance preparation for the trial of Mullah Omar and OBL? For the present, freedom, equality, fundamental rights, human rights, due process of law and established principles of justice have been adversely affected.
The divide widens as Israel remains unchecked and tries to apply the US policy in Afghanistan to Palestine. The initial expressions used immediately after the terrorists attacked the US in September (i.e.) “crusade” and “clash of civilisations” will continue to haunt the world as the US prepares to expand the war on terror from Afghanistan to the other states on its list of terrorist states while the United Nations, OIC and other international organizations watch from the sidelines.
LIAQUAT H. MERCHANT
Karachi
IN his article (Dec 5), Mr M. P. Bhandhara has paid kind tributes to the memory of my late grandfather, Huseyn Shaheed Suhrawardy, former Prime Minister of Pakistan, 38 years after his death, but has also made some unfortunate comments, probably due to the “random readings” he did on my grandfather. It is always dangerous to attempt assessments after “random readings”. I am, therefore, constrained to write to set the record straight, lest some student of history gets confused.
Mr Bhandara has wrongly stated that late Huseyn Shaheed Suhrawardy was a “Bengali nationalist”. In fact, he was a strong Pakistani nationalist before Partition and after Partition. His famous speech delivered in 1946 at the Muslim League Legislators Convention, presided over by the Quaid-i-Azam at Delhi, when he moved the formal Delhi Resolution on Pakistan as the Premier-elect of Bengal of the only Muslim League Ministry formed by virtue of its elected majority, was titled, “Pakistan is my life”. In 1962, in his famous letter to the late President Ayub Khan, he says, “Pakistan is one and indivisible. It is for this we risked our lives and have grown old”.
He was also not of “Iranian extraction”. His lineage is derived from the great Sufi scholar, Sheikh Shahbuddin Suhrawardy of Baghdad, who was of Arab descent.
Mr Bhandara has also referred to “his efforts leading towards a nonfederal type of state”, which he claims, “made sense to the sensible” and which he goes on to describe as,” ... confederation”.
I knew my grandfather’s political views well, as I was fortunate enough to have had several discussions with him while studying political science for my B.A Degree. He opposed “confederation”. In his own words on the subject, written in his unfinished memories, just before his death, published by University Press Ltd., he records: “The idea of confederation was then mooted as the only possible solution that would avoid separation. I had been approached by those who were thinking on the above line, as well as by students and others amongst the younger generation, and I had put my foot down on all talk which might loosen the ties between East and West Pakistan”.
So let there be no doubt, Suhrawardy’s struggle for a fair disbursement of powers between the Centre and the provinces was, as he says, “for the sake of an integrated Pakistan” and was based in his firm conviction that “Pakistan is one and indivisible”. This makes more sense to the sensible.
BARRISTER SHAHIDA JAMIL
Federal Minister for Law,
Justice Human Rights and
Parliamentary Affairs,
Islamabad
THIS refers to Ardeshir Cowasjee’s article (Dec 9) wherein he has requested the Chief Justice of Pakistan to order the reaffixing of the Objectives Resolution plaques on the walls of the entrance hall of the Supreme Court building.
Disagreeing with this proposal, may I submit that the Objectives Resolution is the most controversial document ever passed by the Pakistani Parliament. It was only a direction to the subjects’ committee which had to draft the Constitution. Non-Muslim legislators walked out of the voting session.
Above all, the resolution is in violation of the cherished ideals of the Quaid-i-Azam declared in his speech on 11th August 1947.
The resolution speaks about the majority and the minority communities, and this projects inequality among citizens. For this reason it was never meant to be the part of any Constitution of the country.
Through the eighth amendment, Ziaul Haq made it a part of the constitution. Separate electorate was introduced and Shariat courts were established where a non-Muslim lawyer cannot appear (although a non-Muslim can be a party arraigned before that court).
The late Chief Justice Muneer described the Objectives Resolution as contrary to the Quaid-i-Azam’s ideals as it encouraged theocracy (From Jinnah to Zia, pages 36-37).
Consequently, I would propose that in order to reconstruct Pakistan on the basis of the cherished ideals of the Quaid-i-Azam, i.e. return of pluralism in the society, the Constitution should be amended and both Article 2 and 2-A should be repealed and joint electorate restored.
M. L. SHAHANI
Karachi
I learnt of the Nazim’s decision to impose a tax on second marriages in the jurisdiction of his Union Council, Gharo, district Thatta, through the letter of Zaheer Ahmad Bajwa (Dec 13). This step must be commended and supported at all levels and propagated for enactment in other parts of the country as well. I also want to add that this levy must be collected by the Union Councils and be paid out immediately to the sufferers — the first wife and her children — to provide some financial relief.
The critics may note that the permission given by religion for a second marriage is not being denied. It is intact. The financial penalty being imposed on the man is to provide support to his first wife and children who would be ruined, as hardly any one in Pakistan treats all his wives and children equally and well.
M.M. KHAN
Karachi
IN his column, “History a la Joshi” (Dec 11), Kuldip Nayar has tried to distort facts to make his point. He accuses Pakistan of distorting history by starting it from the time when the Muslims came here.
That is not the case. In Pakistan, when we talk about the history of Indo-Pakistan, we start from 3000-2500 B.C. when the Aryans lived at Moenjodero and Harappa. When I was in class 9-10, I studied the history of the Indo-Pakistan sub-continent and read about the Indus Valley Civilization, the rise and fall of Buddhism, the reign of Ashoka and Kanishka and so on.
Pakistan has not tried to distort history, the way India and its minister, Mr Joshi, has done (as per Mr Nayar’s viewpoint). It is true that when we talk of Islamic history, we do start from the time of the Holy Prophet (pbuh), roughly about 1,400 years ago. But that is with respect to Islamic history and not the history of the Indo-Pakistan sub-continent. Mr. Nayar should understand the difference between the two histories, Islamic and that of India and Pakistan.
MUHAMMAD N. CHAUDHRY
Lahore
The kind of democracy the present military regime is going to introduce in the country after elections in October, 2002 is evident from two things:
The army chief has announced that he will remain the president whatever shape the so-called democracy takes.
No-confidence motions against the Nazims have been declared illegal through an executive order.
WAQAR HAIDER
Lahore
THE newly-appointed (not elected) general secretary of the Millat Party, Mr Muhammad Ali Durrani, has suggested that the number of seats in the National Assembly should be increased from 210 to 310 (Dec 10).
I am very pleased that it is gradually being realized that the number of members of parliament is too small for a country of our size. In fact the one reason that democracy does not work, in this sub-continent, as satisfactorily as it does in developed countries is the inadequate representation of the people of the country. Take the case of India which is supposed to be the most robust democracy of the subcontinent.
There are only 550 members of Indian Parliament who claim to represent 1 billion people of India. This makes one member of parliament to represent 1.8 million Indians. Is this a satisfactory ratio? In Pakistan one member of parliament represents 700,000 Pakistanis and in Bangladesh about 400,000. If you compare these figures with the figures in countries where democracy really works you will find the average size of the constituency to be much smaller. In the UK it is 65,000. In France 55,000 and even in countries like Bulgaria it is much smaller.
I think the subject of discussion should not be the number of members of parliament but the size of a constituency.
If in the UK with the infrastructure available for a prospective candidate the number is 65,000 then in India or Pakistan it should be even smaller.
A candidate, in India or Pakistan or Bangladesh, has to overcome transport problems, if nothing else, to meet the voters. The present size of the constituency that should be reduced.
Unless this is done real democracy that is “Government of the people, by the people, for the people” will not be established, in this sub-continent.
R.H. USMANI
Karachi
BBC newscaster was talking to a correspondent in Jerusalem about the latest attack, killing eight Israeli settlers.
She wanted to know why Israeli gunships were in the air the previous night when there had been an agreement between the two parties to maintain a ceasefire for 48 hours.
He said that Israel had agreed to the ceasefire while maintaining a responsible position during that period.
So this is Israel’s definition of ‘responsible’ behaviour, having gunships hovering above other people’s heads. I wonder what would constitute irresponsible behaviour.
Interestingly enough, an hour later, the part about the gunships in the sky was edited out of the BBC news. Perhaps because it showed Israel in a bad light.
The poor Palestinians don’t know what they are up against the Israeli might and media manipulation. If the BBC can do this what could the CNN be up to?
KHURSHID ANWER
Lahore
According to a recent survey, the Internet is being used mostly for chatting and for viewing porno sites.
Parents must keep an eye on their children’s activities. If they join a cyber cafe, they must make sure that is a place of good repute. Teachers should also guide their students about informative websites. The students must realize their responsibilities and the importance of time.
The NWFP government should take firm steps for the productive use of Internet by the youth in our city. I would also request the concerned District Nazim and the army monitoring team to pay surprise visits to these Internet cafes and take action against erring owners and users.
QUDRATULLAH GANDAPUR
D.I. Khan
A few months back, one of our ministers had stated that ‘Our metropolitan police force vans do not have enough petrol to chase the criminals’.
However, every morning I see a police officer who drops his children to school in his official jeep which is followed by a police van carrying a full load of policemen. He is only one of the hundreds of police officers posted in this city.
From where do they all get petrol for such trips ?
SAMBEG
Karachi
POLICE reforms in Sindh, which were scheduled for October 12, 2001, have been put into the cold storage mainly due to financial constraints. The reforms are estimated to cost about Rs 270 million but the plan contains no proposal for improvements in the salary package and the working conditions of the lower staff, whose ranks range from constable to inspector (Nov 17).
The problem is that no attention is being paid to the welfare and improvement of the terms of service of the constable who is expected to work round-the-clock for a meagre salary of around Rs 3000 per month. A police constable gets a monthly conveyance allowance of Rs 96, house rent Rs 466, washing allowance Rs 50, medical allowance and TA/DA Rs 90 and Rs 80 respectively. With a maximum salary of Rs 3700, a police constable in Pakistan is expected to perform his duties in the same manner as do constables in the advanced countries.
Reforms in the police department will only be fruitful if the lower staff gets proper salaries and facilities.
SYED A. MATEEN
Karachi
IN spite of the propaganda that things are on the mend with the US, disturbing news abounds. Virtually every Pakistani in the US is under suspicion. Scores now languish in US prisons. Pakistani exports lie at the US ports (at one stage 900 containers at New York harbour alone) awaiting screening and clearance. It is no longer easy for students to get admission to US colleges. Branches of Pakistani banks operating in the US have been signalled to virtually shut shop. Similar, but less trying circumstances confront Pakistanis in Europe.
Obviously, the vast majority of Pakistanis does not deserve this because evidence implicating them in the September 11 affair has not been found. Nevertheless, it would be wrong to react in our customary fit of anger. The silent majority, which stands to lose the most from this scenario, needs to examine its conduct during the last two decades when standing up to organized crime, sectarianism, corruption in civil services and business and common disregard for the law, was described as foolhardiness. It became fashionable to advise friends and acquaintances on the merits of keeping quiet over crimes ranging from traffic violations to targeted killings.
Crime feeds on public slackness in demanding swift justice. Yet, there were few
effective protests over the government failure in nabbing criminals and supporters of crime. The apathy allowed crime to take roots in every walk of life. Tacit and overt institutional support to crime earned for us the reputation for supporting terrorism but the real culprit is the silent majority. It lived with crime for too long.
We sat in our drawing rooms hoping that tragedy will bypass us. Now we must face the tragic consequences of the havoc racked upon us by a handful of religious zealots, gun runners, smugglers, money launderers, corrupt bankers, and civil servants. By remaining silent spectators to crime perpetuating itself, what we committed was no ordinary oversight; it has put the future of our younger generation at stake.
Civil defence forces, crime detection agencies, and the judiciary must accept their shortcomings, and make amends there. But what must be debated ever more vigorously is the role of the majority, which is still ineffective. Leave aside more heinous crimes like gun-running, targeted killings, and money laundering and take, for instance, car thefts that enrich criminals and their supporters by between Rs 20 to 30 million a day. Yet, there is no popular outcry against it. Nor do insurance companies protest over it. Instead, they just jack-up the insurance premia.
Haven’t we learned any lessons yet, or do we need more shocks to break our almost death-like slumber? It is time to collectively and forcefully pinpoint institutional weaknesses that perpetuate crime.
A.B. SHAHID
Karachi
You can also send letters to the Editor
Just send your message to the following address:
Make sure you include your full name, postal address, e-mail address, and in the case of Pakistan your day-time telephone number.