| February 5, 2002 | Tuesday | Ziqa’ad 21, 1422 |
Please Visit our Sponsor (Ads open in separate window)
Bonded labour’s plight
Police highhandedness
AS was inevitable, a cleavage seems to be developing between the US and its coalition partners on Washington’s increasingly assertive unilateralism with regard to the war on terrorism. Hawks in the Bush administration now seem determined to go it alone and target other countries, especially Iran and Iraq. The differences between America and its European partners came to the fore at the Munich conference, where EU diplomats seemed to differ with their American counterparts on the question of extension. The most dangerous development appears to be the American bipartisan unanimity on this issue as is evident from the support US Deputy Defence Secretary Paul Wolfowitz got from Republican and Democrat Senators present at Munich. To Russian Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov’s suggestion that an extension of the war on terrorism must have UN approval, Wolfowitz said this was not needed. He took “strong exception” to the suggestion and said America needed no international sanctions because it had been attacked. He was supported by William Cohen, defence secretary in Clinton administration, and by Senators John McCain and Joe Lieberman and others.
They criticized the Europeans for being slow on the war on terrorism. McCain attacked Iraq and expressed his annoyance with the Europeans by saying that the day of reckoning was approaching not only for Saddam Hussein but also for “all members of the Atlantic community.” Cohen also said the US might go it alone on this issue and added that it would feel less compelled to consult its European allies the more they fell behind in military contribution. European opposition to America’s hawkish line was led by German and British diplomats. A British diplomat said an attack on Iraq would require “incontrovertible evidence”, which he said was lacking. A spokesman for Germany’s Christian Democratic Party said America should take Europe along in drawing up a strategy instead of asking it to “trot along behind.”
It is time Washington realized the full implications of what an extension of war to Iran and Iraq would mean. The Russian foreign minister said while Moscow supported the war on Afghanistan his country was opposed to an attack on Iraq. He also said there was no proof that Iran was supporting terrorism. In fact, he said, Iran had been fighting terrorism for years. Similar views have in the past been expressed by many Muslim countries, including Turkey, which has previously helped America in its air strikes against Iraq. Both Iran and Iraq do not fall within the category of states supporting terrorism. Iran has no links with any terrorist group, while whatever else may be said about Saddam Hussein, he has not associated himself with terrorism. As for weapons of mass destruction, Iran has offered international inspection of its nuclear facilities, while Iraqi installations suspected of engaging in producing weapons of mass destruction stand dismantled.
Clearly, the Muslim components of the world coalition will dissociate themselves from the US should it think in terms of bombing either Iran or Iraq, or both. More important, there may be a backlash against Muslim regimes which may choose to support such a move. A greater danger is that a strike on Iran and/or Iraq will be seen by the Muslim peoples as a war against Islam itself, and this may lead to the world’s polarization on religious lines. This would hardly serve America’s aim to stamp out terrorism. Instead, this may strengthen those very forces which the US wants to root out.
THE problem of bonded labour in agriculture and private jails of waderas has been coming up before courts with increasing frequency. Not that this is a recent phenomenon; it has been there all the time as an abhorring offshoot of the entrenched feudal system. What is new about it is the awareness of human rights and of the blatant violation of these in the rural hinterland by an unholy alliance of feudals and their administrative and police cohorts. However, our rulers have not shown any strong inclination to attend to this evil and try to contain it through appropriate legal and social measures. Hearing a large number of petitions seeking protection against possible detention and persecution by landlords, a division bench of the Sindh High Court found itself in a bind. Since the apprehended detention related to disputes over money which was borrowed by the haris from their landlords and no physical detention had yet taken place, the division bench of the court was unable to act in the matter. However, it recommended several changes in the Sindh Tenancy Act to bring it into conformity with the accepted legal and moral norms. In the interim, the court has issued a directive that civil judges and judicial magistrates investigate the matter and report to it.
The problems of bonded labour and private jails exist in six districts of lower Sindh, namely Hyderabad, Thatta, Badin, Sanghar, Mirpurkhas and Umerkot. In these backward areas minority Bheel and Kohli tribes constitute a sizable section of the haris and this makes it easy for the rulers to continue to ignore the problems affecting these people. The haris of these tribes are sold along with their families by one landlord to another and the money is paid in consideration of the debts supposedly owed by the haris. These hapless haris and their families are employed as slave labour, with their movements restricted and a whole lot of them sometimes kept in private jails under strict guard. The freedom and the rights that the Bonded Labour (Abolition) Act allows in such cases are denied to them by the relevant administrative officials in league with the landlords. Is it too much to expect the higher authorities to look into this ignoble aspect of feudalism more seriously and purposively than they have shown so far and take stronger legal and social action to minimize the suffering and exploitation of the landless haris at the hands of their feudal masters?
THE police baton charge against Lahore lawyers protesting against the induction of army officers into the anti-terrorist courts was a deplorable act. As part of the Lahore Bar Association’s campaign against the government’s controversial decision, some 1,200 lawyers carrying banners and placards had assembled at the Aiwan-i-Adl on Saturday chanting slogans against the decision to reconstitute the anti-terrorist courts. When the lawyers decided to proceed to the Governor’s House to register their protest, the police blocked their way and then proceeded to attack them with batons. In the ensuing melee, three lawyers were injured. This act of police highhandedness was totally unprovoked and must be strongly condemned. This was no way to treat a group of professionals protesting peacefully against a decision that impinges on their duties as lawyers and, in their view, curtails the freedom of the judiciary. If respectable citizens can be manhandled in this manner, one can imagine what ordinary people have often to suffer if they try to hold a peaceful rally. To make matters worse, the police refused to register a case against the DSP allegedly responsible for attacking one badly injured lawyer. The government must restrain the police from indulging in this kind of uncivilized behaviour against peaceful protesters.