INDIA has mobilized its entire propaganda machinery to convince the international community that Pakistan is sponsoring “terrorism” in occupied Kashmir by facilitating the cross-LoC incursions into that territory.

Pakistan has, time and again, denied this allegation. India also portrays the on-going freedom struggle in Kashmir as terrorism with widespread adverse ramifications. In the wake of the September 11 carnage in the United States, India has not only intensified its vicious propaganda against Pakistan and unleashed brutalities against the Kashmiri freedom fighters, it has also left no stone unturned to make the US believe that India like the US is a victim of terrorism perpetrated by the Islamic fundamentalists who have their roots in Pakistan. The idea behind this propaganda is to convince Washington that their common interests call for a joint Indo-US strategy to eliminate the Pakistan-backed Islamic terrorism from Kashmir.

Probably India thinks that the only way to gain the sympathies of the international community for its excessive use of force against the people of Kashmir is to project their indigenous freedom movement as a proxy war being fought by “Pakistani infiltrators”. There are indications that the western world has, to some extent, been influenced by India’s malicious propaganda. India is allergic to the involvement of a third party in the Kashmir dispute. However, it invokes such intervention, in whatever form it may come, if it serves its own interests.

At a press conference at Almaty, Indian Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee made a proposal for joint Indo-Pakistan patrolling of the LoC to stop “infiltration”. Apparently, the Indian prime minister made this proposal to neutralize Pakistan’s diplomatic gains at the CICA Conference. However, the very fact that the Indian prime minister chose to float his proposal at a press conference leads one to believe that it was only a political gimmick to hoodwink the international community. If India had been serious about its proposal, the same should have been conveyed to Pakistan through proper diplomatic channels.

In any case, the lack of mutual trust between the two countries makes the proposal in question unviable. Indian Defence Minister George Fernandes was absolutely right when he said that a lot of confidence building measures were necessary before his prime minister’s proposal could be implemented. It must also be realized that the mountainous terrain of the LoC would come in the way of the practical application of the proposed joint patrolling. Actually, it would be impossible to carry out the desired operations on the high mountains and ridges.

The US and Britain have also made separate proposals to check “infiltration” from across the LoC. The US has suggested the deployment of technically advanced sensors along the LoC to detect movements across it. Britain has proposed airborne monitoring. Indian Home Minister L.K. Advani has, however, ruled out the possibility of the deployment of foreign monitors on the Indian side of the LoC. He would have no objection if these monitors were confined to the Pakistani side of the line.

It may be recalled that, in 1972, India had asked the United Nations to withdraw its observers from the ceasefire line which the Simla agreement had defined as LoC. These UN observers had been operating there since, 1949, when the line was established under the Karachi agreement concluded between Pakistan and India. India’s request for withdrawal was based on the ground that, after the Simla agreement, the mandate of United Nations Military Observer Group in India and Pakistan (UNMOGIP) had lapsed. Pakistan did not accept this position and asked the United Nations for the retention of its observers on the LoC, as neither the Kashmir dispute had been resolved nor had it been withdrawn from the UN by the two countries.

Given the disagreement between Pakistan and India over UNMOGIP’s mandate and functions, the UN Secretary Generals position has been that the mandate of UNMOGIP can be terminated only by a decision of the UN Security Council. In the absence of such a decision, UNMOGIP has been maintained with the same mandate and functions, and the cost on its maintenance is met from the regular budget of the United Nations. Pakistan has continued to lodge complaints of the violations of the LoC by India to UNMOGIP. However, India has not lodged any such complaint to UNMOGIP since 1972, and has restricted the activities of the UN observers on its side of the LoC. It, however, provides accommodation, transport and other facilities to UNMOGIP in occupied Kashmir.

Basically, the Simla agreement was related to the termination of the 1971 war and was not Kashmir-specific. However, India deliberately misinterpreted the Simla agreement to project Kashmir as a bilateral matter between the two countries and has maintained that Pakistan cannot now raise it either at the United Nations or in any other international forum. India’s interpretation of the Simla agreement is self-serving and distorted.

The Simla agreement has not rendered the UN resolutions on Kashmir infructuous. They have not become invalid due to their non-implementation either. It seems that India has even reneged on its commitment to the Simla agreement, which provides that the two sides seek a final settlement of the Kashmir problem through bilateral talks, and wants the world to accept its illegal and untenable position that Kashmir is its integral part.

It is astonishing that the US and Britain, as well as the UN, which who are playing a key role in defusing tensions in the subcontinent, have not been able to persuade India to allow the monitoring of the LoC by the UN observers who have been present in the area since 1949 and form the nucleus of UNMOGIP. India also ought to be told by the US and Britain that the UN, which has the principal responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security, has been mandated, under the UN Charter, to take necessary measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the international peace and decisively act in situations which might lead to a breach of peace.

The deployment of the UN observers at the LoC, no matter how small in number, would not only serve as a deterrent but may also have a stabilizing effect on the efforts for peace in the region. The sensor operators or airborne monitors, as suggested by the US and Britain respectively should be made part of the UNMOGIP operations to enhance its efficacy. The deployment of the UN observers along the LoC will not, in any manner, impinge upon the sovereignty of India.

The writer is a former ambassador.

WITH the general elections only a few months away, the government is planning some constitutional amendments, which it bills as bare minimum and essential without touching its basic principles. Any changes need not only review the composition of the National Assembly but also incorporate provisions to accord dignity and honour due to it as a representative of the people safeguarding their fundamental freedoms and basic law of the country.

Our national assembly in 55 years of existence of the country has treaded a perilous path. In the process it lost its way and purpose. The national assembly was guillotined ten times with as many prime ministers being tossed out of the revolving political door. Of these, only one assembly was folded on the advice of the prime minister. The first assembly to face the axe in 1954 had overstretched its term, while all others met their end unceremoniously before they could run their full term.

To the dismay of politicians the assembly had been sent packing four times by the army generals. Six times it was dismissed by the heads of state who all had a common background of belonging to the civil bureaucracy.

General Yahya Khan dissolved the assembly in March 1969 and General Ziaul Haq axed it twice in July 1977 and May 1988. For the fourth time it was wound up by General Pervez Musharraf in October 1999.

Of the civilian heads of state, Governor General Ghulam Muhammad and President Iskander Mirza dismissed the assembly in 1954 and 1958 respectively. Mr. Ghulam Ishaq Khan dissolved the assembly once in August 1990 and twice during 1993 (in April and July). Only in July 1993 was it given marching orders on the advice of the prime minister, who along with the President stepped down as a sequel to infighting in their camps. President Farooq Ahmad Leghari completed the tally in early November 1996.

Ghulam Muhammad and Ghulam Ishaq Khan were veteran civil servants having made it to the head of state. Farooq Leghari quit his civil service job midway to follow a political career. General Ayub Khan might have used Iskandar Mirza as a cover to dispense with the assembly in 1958, but action by all other presidents stemmed from their own decisions.

Delving into the political account of yesteryear, one finds that painful dismissals of the assemblies did not trigger any popular reaction. In a way the politicians were the authors of the misfortune besetting the assembly. They shied away from holding general elections for 11 years after the birth of the country creating a sense of alienation among the masses. The indirectly elected house was not anchored in popular support and lacked any relationship or interaction with the people.

The stagnation in the political system undermined the institutional role of the parliament, while both civil and army bureaucracies were quick to grab all chances to dent the image and authority of the assembly. It would be of interest to quote from the report of Hamood-ur-Rehman commission about the elevation of Ghulam Muhammad as Governor General: “He took over the office on October 20,1951, a fateful day for Pakistan, as subsequent events have since proved. The day marks the beginning of the rule of bureaucrats in Pakistan.” The election of bureaucrats as president of the country betrays the bankruptcy of the politicians and they paid a heavy price for it.

The politicians themselves relegated the assembly to a discarded talking shop. The prime ministers seldom attended the sittings of the assembly. In Britain the prime minister answers questions during the question hour in the House of Commons twice a week on Tuesdays and Thursdays. The ministers make all significant policy statements on the floor of the house. In contrast our prime ministers use the electronic media for the purposes of announcing important decisions.

Whenever our the prime minister visits the assembly, the MPs make the most of his presence by securing jobs and posting and transfers of their friends and relatives.

Most of all such orders were made by bending the rules. These acts of patronage entailed recruitment without merit on the one hand and politicization of the bureaucracy on the other.

The assembly was tightly leashed even in its main role of legislation. The government issued a spate of ordinances, some of them a day before the start or prorogation of its sessions. This reduced it to a rubber-stamping body. Article 89 of the Constitution empowers the president to promulgate ordinances when the assembly is not in session and the president was satisfied that circumstances exist which render it necessary to take immediate action. This provision that is meant for meeting a situation needing immediate action had been used as a convenient tool to bypass the assembly.

According to a newspaper report the federal government issued as many as 117 ordinances in 1995. That worked out to one ordinance every third day. The report said the government could get only eight laws passed during the year. Besides these ordinances, five presidential orders and one regulation were also issued during the year.

The assembly found little relief from the judiciary in crucial moments of defining the role of the state organs. In the first place it was unfair on the part of the politicians to fight their political battles in the courtrooms. Such cases brought too much pressure on the courts that sometimes evoked political response.

The office of the Speaker of the Assembly that is central to the role of the House was slighted repeatedly. Designed to exercise control over the executive of the country the office had been anything but independent. The speakers were voted out on the drop of a hat.

In September 1958 unprecedented hooliganism in the then East Pakistan assembly resulted in the death of Deputy Speaker Shamsuddin. Former West Pakistan Assembly voted out its Speaker Mobinul Haque Siddiqui in July 1963. The National Assembly removed its speaker, Syed Fakhr Imam, from office in May 1986. It is generally believed that the fault of these speakers was “not falling in line” with the dictates of the majority party.

In Britain the current speaker of the House of Commons, Michael Martin, is 156th incumbent since the office came to be known as speaker in 1377. Not a single speaker of the Commons had since been voted, out although nine of them in olden times are known to have died violent death. Probably they offended the kings and were put to death after trials.

A speaker in Britain is generally elected from the treasury benches. It helps if the government and the opposition can agree on a candidate. In case there are two candidates, which has happened on only three occasions in the last century, a division is held. The former speaker Betty Boothroyd, belonged the opposition Labour Party when she was elected speaker in 1992 in the Tory Government of John Major. The House of Commons saw only 12 speakers from 1895 to 1997.

A speaker of the Commons after election takes himself or herself out of party politics. He has to be seen at all times to be neutral.

He can neither stand as a party candidate for re-election nor can he or she campaign. The speaker also has an administrative role, first ex-officio as Chairman of the House of Commons Commission, which is the employer of all permanent staff of the House (trial of Yousaf Raza Gilani on this count needs review).

In contrast our Constitution (Article 53) dealing with the election of the speaker does not require a speaker to remain above party politics or to be seen as completely impartial in all public matters. The speaker’s oath of office provided in the third schedule of the Constitution is also silent on the matter. It only provides that the speaker “will not allow my personal interest to influence my official conduct or my official decisions”.

Our speakers must also share the blame for not trying to accord dignity due to the office of the speaker by remaining impartial or above party politics when in office and out of it. They had acted as party representatives while conducting the business of the House. Out of office, Syed Yousaf Raza Gilani continues to be the vice-president of Pakistan Peoples’ Party and Illahi Bakhsh Soomro, Gohar Ayub Khan and Hamid Nasir Chattha are part of mainstream politics in the country.

To ensure a successful functioning of the parliamentary system the national assembly must get constitutional protection against its arbitrary dismissal at the hand of presidents. The prime ministers should transform it into a powerful body exercising control over executive.

The PMs need to attend its sessions regularly and make all important announcements and introduce all legislation in the assembly.

The office of the speaker needs to be strengthened by making it independent and free from party influence to enable it provide guidance and direction to the assembly.