| April 30, 2002 | Tuesday | Safar 16, 1423 |
Please Visit our Sponsor (Ads open in separate window)
Israel’s fear of the truth
Dog bite deaths
TODAY, for the third time in Pakistan’s chequered constitutional history, an army chief is presenting himself to the people for their approval of his rule. In 1960, 80,000 elected Basic Democrats constituted the electoral college for the referendum Ayub organized for himself. In 1984, the vote for Ziaul Haq was direct, and the nation was asked to decide whether it approved of his Islamization policy. A Yes vote meant he would stand elected as president for five years. In today’s referendum, the question is more direct, asking the people to decide whether they want Musharraf to stay on as president for five years for the sake of protecting his reforms. The vote for Ayub and Zia was 95.6 and 97.7 respectively, and there is no reason to believe an affirmative vote this time will be anything less ‘spectacular.’
The biggest difference, however, is that the referendum today is being held in a relaxed and liberal atmosphere. Ayub’s referendum was held when martial law was still there, and all political parties and political activity stood banned. Ziaul Haq’s referendum was organized in an atmosphere of terror. All political activity stood banned, though some religious parties functioned illegally with full state backing and were asked to mobilize support for the general. In the case of the present referendum, the political atmosphere is much more relaxed. Political parties are not only working, they are allowed to campaign against the referendum. Saturday’s ARD rally in Lahore was one such proof of the general’s liberal attitude towards dissent. The press is also free, which was not the case in 1960 and 1984. Also, no one went to court to challenge the two earlier exercises. Today’s referendum was, however, challenged in court. This helped Musharraf obtain a legal cover for his move which would have not been there if his opponents had not gone to court.
Saturday’s supreme court order validating the referendum is vague, and leaves the consequences of the referendum “to be determined at a proper forum at an appropriate time.” In any case, the chances are that we will have Gen. Musharraf as our head of state for the next five years. The stated aim behind his continuation in office is the protection of the economic and political reforms, specially devolution, which his government has launched over the last two and a half years. Nevertheless, under the 1973 Constitution, it is the prime minister and his aides who have the power to formulate and execute domestic and foreign policies; the president has only a limited role in this sphere. What happens if the prime minister who assumes office as a result of the general election in October sees the reforms in a different light? The president will have no way to change the direction of the prime minister’s policies, unless Gen Musharraf decides to amend the Constitution to get more powers for himself. This is easier thought of than done. Normally, amendments should follow the course laid down in the Constitution. But there is all the possibility that the national assembly that comes into being after the October election may not oblige the general. As a precaution against such a possibility, we may see more amendments through presidential ordinances, including the one relating to the National Security Council, which would subordinate the civilian authority to the military. It would be in the national interest if all these amendments are done according to the Constitution and their endorsement is not made a condition for transfer of power.
ISRAEL’s efforts to block a UN fact-finding mission from visiting the Jenin refugee camp not only amount to a defiance of world opinion but is clearly an attempt to cover up its terrible crimes in the devastated town. The team was constituted following a UN Security Council resolution which called for a probe into allegations of human rights violations at the camp earlier this month. This is the third time in four days that Israel has stopped the team from arriving to carry out its probe. The Israelis first objected to the composition of the team, and vetoed several names on the list of members. They then claimed that the team was too heavily loaded in favour of people with humanitarian backgrounds. When the UN added certain military and anti-terrorism experts to allay Israeli fears, Tel Aviv once again delayed the arrival by claiming that the cabinet was too busy thrashing out details of a US-brokered deal aimed at ending the siege of Yasser Arafat’s official compound in Ramallah. Clearly, these are delaying tactics. Tel Aviv knows its hands are not clean, and is therefore extremely nervous about what the team would find.
Independent observers say that the Israeli army went on a rampage during its siege of Jenin, killing large numbers of innocent civilians and reducing the town to rubble with the help of tanks and bulldozers. The Palestinians allege that as many as 500 people were killed during this murderous incursion, with dozens buried under the rubble of what were once their homes. To make matters worse, the Israelis refused to allow medical aid or earth-moving machinery to reach the town, which added to the casualties. Israeli ministers continue to issue aggressive statements about the fact-finding mission’s true motives, claiming that it is “out to get Israel”. What Tel Aviv fears is that the team may want to interrogate the officers and soldiers who took part in the terrible atrocities in Jenin. In short, what Israel is most afraid of is the truth.
IT may seem unbelievable but the number of people who die annually from rabies in Pakistan runs into thousands. This shocking fact was revealed at a lecture on rabies recently arranged by a private hospital in Islamabad. It is tragic that so many people in this country should be dying from a disease which can, with a little extra effort, be controlled if the health and local authorities focus on the problem. Rabies is spread mainly through dog bites, which transmit the contagious and fatal viral disease to humans through the saliva of infected dogs, causing hydrophobic convulsions and death.
As pointed out in the lecture on rabies, in countries where the killing of stray dogs is prohibited, such dogs are properly vaccinated. In a resource-strapped country like Pakistan, where even large numbers of humans cannot be properly vaccinated against various types of infectious diseases, a more economical way would be to control the stray dog population by putting them to sleep. This is one area where the new local government bodies can play an important role. The general public also needs to be apprised about this silent killer in their midst through the media and through public campaigns, encouraging them to seek immediate medical treatment after being bitten by a dog. Not many may be aware of the potential fatality of a dog bite, especially since the incubation period for rabies may vary from six days to six months.
Last but not least, the people have a right of access to the latest vaccines for the prevention of rabies, no matter what the cost, and the health authorities should make it a point to make this easily available to the people at local health units and hospitals.