| January 10, 2002 | Thursday | Shawwal 25, 1422 |
Please Visit our Sponsor (Ads open in separate window)
Islamabad’s own high court
A master steps down
ONE of the casualties of the anti-terrorism rhetoric since Sept 11 has been the truth. While the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Centre and the Pentagon have been, and deserved to be, condemned universally, one is aghast to note the rather successful hijacking of the anti-terrorist campaign by interested quarters. The United States, as the victim of the Sept 11 carnage, organized and led a world coalition with the avowed aim of crushing the Al Qaeda network and overthrowing the Taliban regime which harboured it. The response it received virtually from the whole world, including the Muslim world, was instantaneous and warm. There is no doubt that, for the foreseeable future, too, American foreign policy will be guided by its approach to global terrorism. However, one major cause for concern in this global war on terrorism is its clever use by some countries for advancing their own national agendas in the garb of helping the world coalition. Insincere to the anti-terrorism cause, these countries see in this US-led campaign an opportunity to serve their own geopolitical interests that run contrary to the aims and objectives of the US-led world coalition.
Israel, for instance, has all along regarded the Palestinian struggle for freedom as terrorism and its freedom fighters as terrorists. However, let it be said in all fairness to Israel, Tel Aviv has not jumped on the anti-terrorism bandwagon only recently. In fact, the Zionists have been quite “original” in bracketing freedom struggles with terrorism. It is also owing to the Zionist control over the western, especially American, media that the Palestinian struggle continues to be regarded even by the enlightened sections in the west as terrorism. And this by a country that itself came into being through decades of terrorism against Palestine’s native population.
India is a recent entrant to this exclusive club where states themselves practise terrorism to deny freedom to enslaved peoples. Earlier, India had different arguments to advance for justifying its military occupation of the Kashmir valley. For instance, it used to say that Kashmir had acceded to India — referring to the instrument of accession signed by the fugitive Maharaja — and that Pakistan had committed aggression. Later, it said that there was no need for a UN-sponsored plebiscite, because there have been several general elections in which the Kashmiri people had given their verdict in favour of India. However, for more than a decade now, unable to suppress the Kashmiri people’s revolt, it has started accusing Pakistan of “cross border terrorism.” Now, in the wake of the Sept 11 events, its propaganda line would have the world believe that what was happening in Kashmir was not a freedom struggle but terrorism at the behest of Pakistan.
Regretfully, large sections of the western media, and even diplomats, seem to buy this line. In fact, even those who are aware of India’s record of brutalities in Kashmir refuse to criticize India for its human rights violations on a colossal scale. Quite a few diplomats who have recently visited South Asia have been guilty of this omission. They have either asked Pakistan to do more to curb terrorism or been magnanimous enough to praise Islamabad for its recent crackdown on religious extremists. But none of them had the moral courage to rap India for its murder of 72,000 Kashmiri men, women and children, the wholesale burning of villages and the dishonouring of women.It is time Pakistan mobilized all its diplomatic efforts to counter Indian efforts to use the world community’s anti-terrorism campaign as a cover for camouflaging its state terrorism in Kashmir.
THE proposal by the government to the establish a Federal High Court in the Islamabad Capital Territory (ICT) deserves to be welcomed. It will fill a judicial void in the region since Islamabad does not come under the jurisdiction of either the Punjab or any other province. In fact, until now citizens seeking legal redress and the city’s lawyers wanting a lucrative practice have had to fall back on the Lahore High Court. In any case, and as pointed out by a senior official of the ICT administration, a federal high court should have been set up much earlier, since the federal capital enjoys the status of a province and the chief commissioner has the powers of a governor. This proposal makes even more sense if one realizes that the capital is soon to have its first ever local government elections. Having its own high court would put it on a par with the provinces and the high courts in their provincial capitals.
The ICT is in the process of preparing a comprehensive report on the issue, assessing the legal requirements of setting up the proposed high court and the workload of cases in Islamabad. This includes reviewing the constitutional status of the proposed High Court, in which case the government would either have to make the necessary amendments to the constitution or promulgate an ordinance for its formation. Once established, the Federal High Court will be able to reduce the burden on the Lahore High Court, since it will then be possible to divert to it thousands of appeals and cases filed by Islamabad-based litigants. Besides, lawyers and judges with an Islamabad domicile will also be able to rise and become high court judges, something they were not previously eligible for, since the city does not fall under the jurisdiction of any province.
LEGENDARY fashion designer Yves St Laurent plunged the fashion world into gloom on Monday by announcing his retirement from the industry and the closing down of his celebrated fashion house. His decision to step down, following long bouts of ill-health and depression, brings to an end an era in which the reclusive Algeria-born designer dominated the fashion scene. Over the years, his YSL brand had come to define a distinctive kind of chic elegance. In the sixties, widely considered his most path-breaking decade, St Laurent single-handedly redefined the dress sense of western women by liberating them from the cumbersome folds of traditional ultra-feminine attire. This was the period when he created the trouser suit and the dinner jacket for women, reflecting more practical and liberated times. As one fashion guru put it, St Laurent “Really liberated women’s bodies. He made a lot of clothes for women that looked like men’s clothes, and suddenly women were able to wear a lot of clothes they could not before”.
While his fashion house was sold to Gucci in 1999, St Laurent continued to design his exquisite haute couture range and found a market for his expensive creations among the fashion conscious super rich. The reclusive designer had a deeply tormented early life that spurred him on to make a name for himself. Starting off with Chanel in the fifties, Laurent went on to set up his own label in 1961. Venerated by his compatriots in France, Yves St Laurent has a museum in Paris dedicated entirely to his work. He has also recieved the prestigious Legion of Honour from President Jacques Chirac. The fashion world, as well as a generation of stylish men and women, are going to miss the distinctive style of a master of his craft.