| April 15, 2003 | Tuesday | Safar 12, 1424 |
Qazi doubts legality of NA decisions
Faiz’s poetry discussed
Water issue confusion
IT is hardly surprising that Pakistan’s name should be dragged into the debate over which country will be the next domino to fall to an American pre-emptive strike. Pakistan after all possesses the ultimate weapon of mass destruction.
But just how real is the scenario of the US targeting at Pakistan?
The government in Islamabad as well as its critics in the opposition have both scoffed at the very idea of such a scenario, although for different reasons.
The government’s argument is that such a scenario will never come about because Pakistan is a responsible power and its nuclear weapons are in safe hands. The foreign minister at a recent interview with Dawn had also said that the validity and efficacy of the command and control structure of Pakistan’s nuclear weapons is recognized by international defence journals like Jane’s.
However, one opposition leader is reported to have said that the Americans have no reason to attack Pakistan at all because its rulers offer no resistance as they do everything they are ordered to do through a telephone call. Another provincial opposition leader from a religious organization has even gone to the extent of saying that there is no need for the Americans to attack Pakistan because the former’s intelligence agencies are already virtually in charge of the country’s affairs.
According to an official source in Islamabad, the US will not attack Pakistan because the latter does not pose any threat to it, nor to Israel for that matter. The Americans have got Pakistan’s cooperation, particularly in the war against international terrorism, and American interests lay in a continuation of that cooperation.
Secondly, there is no need for America to strike at Pakistan because all it needs to do whenever it wanted Pakistan to comply was to apply economic pressure by cutting off all aid and assistance, says the above source. Likewise, Pakistan’s greatest concern in the post-Iraq war scenario in the Middle East is chiefly economic in nature, he continued. The worst nightmare for Pakistan is a choking of its oil supply from the Middle East in the event of a war with India — a possibility which has increased because of increased American presence and influence in the Middle East.
The third reason why the US is unlikely to strike at Pakistan is because of the latter’s armed forces, said the above source. Confronting the Pakistan armed forces is a different ball game altogether for the US, one in which the US cannot think of doing unless it is prepared to face heavy casualties.
The Americans, he said, would never have ventured into Iraq if they had believed that the Iraqi armed forces could put up a hard and long fight. The spectacle of heavy casualties is a weakness of the American rulers. They, therefore, went into Iraq only after they were sure that the Iraqi armed forces would offer little resistance and that the latter did not possess chemical weapons — a fact which, ironically, the UN weapons inspections had helped to confirm.
Look at the way how easily the US ground troops marched in from both the northern and southern ends of Iraq with Baghdad at the centre as the final destination, said the source. The very fact that the Americans were able to maintain the hundreds of kilometres of supply lines with hardly any credible resistance at all from the Iraqi armed forces is an eye-opener.
The Iraqi armed forces even failed to employ obvious tactics like blowing up bridges to stall or hinder the American troops’ advance. Boxes of anti-missile equipment were also reported to be found in Iraq, still packed and unused. What the American troops have been dealing with in Iraq are mere isolated pockets of fighters who are resisting out of either loyalty to the regime or wanting to oppose an invading force.
Naturally Pakistan is keenly studying the strategic implications of the Iraq war in the Middle East, in particular, and in the world, in general. If the Iraq episode were to be easily repeated in another Arab country with American unipolarism and unilaterism fully reinforced in the world, this would be a nightmare for small and medium-sized countries. But if the fracture which had occurred in the western alliance just before the outbreak of war in Iraq were to widen in the post-Iraq war scenario to result in the emergence of a multipolar world, this would be strategically advantageous for small and medium powers like Pakistan.
What are the lessons from the Iraq war as far as Pakistan’s defence capability is concerned? There are varied opinions.
One provincial leader of the central ruling party says that the essential lesson from the Iraq war — not only for Pakistan but for all other countries in the world — is that they should never get themselves into any sort of disarmament programme, whether in the conventional or nuclear field.
At the same time however, a senator from the opposition party says that the Iraq war has shown that Pakistan should act very responsibly and carefully as far as development of its nuclear weapons is concerned, otherwise it would merely be providing the US with the excuse to downgrade if not remove altogether its nuclear capability. In this respect, Pakistan’s foreign minister had said in his recent interview with Dawn that it was adding an “element of transparency” to its weapons of mass destruction programme.
What will, perhaps, determine Pakistan’s ability to avoid getting itself into a situation where an American pre-emptive strike is thought necessary at all is maintaining a delicate balance between proving that it is a responsible nuclear state on the one hand and maintaining its capability to effectively deter Indian agression on the other.
THE following is an edited version of the Dawn Dialogue interview with Qazi Husain Ahmed:
Question: You, like other leaders of other parties, contested the October elections at a time when Gen Pervez Musharraf had raised the number of assembly seats and taken some other steps which could be given effect to only through his constitutional amendments. If Gen Musharraf had no authority to amend the Constitution, as you argue, what was the justification for you to take part in the elections at a time when he had made certain matters fait accompli for the incoming parliament?
Answer: This is a very serious issue which you have raised at the outset. Let me tell you that when you want to make a transition from dictatorship to democracy, you have to make use of whatever course is available. Rejecting such an opening would have amounted to maintaining the status quo — and allowing extra-constitutional rule to go on. We never recognized Gen Musharraf’s power to amend the Constitution. But we accepted the increase in the number of assembly seats, reduction in voter’s age and certain other election-related measures to pave the way for the rebirth of democratic institutions.
Q: But by doing so, you weakened your own stand that the general was not competent to make any amendment to the Constitution.
A: I’ll again point out that we never recognized Gen Musharraf as chief executive. But he was the de-facto ruler for three years. We insist that this three-year period lacked legitimacy. All steps taken by him during this period must be brought to parliament for ratification. Unless the bicameral legislature indemnifies his term, it would be without legitimacy.
As for the issue of justification for various parties to take part in elections under the rules of the game set by the military ruler, I’ll defend it. It was like someone eating pork in a situation when he has nothing ‘halal’ to eat and his survival is at stake. He did not eat ‘haram’ by choice; it was necessitated by circumstances.
Had we stayed away from the elections, we would not have been able to play the role in parliament that we are now in a position to play. Our participation in the electoral process averted a possible state of chaos and anarchy.
Q: But this shows that you are accepting parts of the LFO which protect your seats and are rejecting other ingredients. As a matter of principle, if Gen Musharraf had the right to amend the Constitution, then all his amendments are valid. Or, all of them are invalid, including those you are prepared to endorse.
A: We accept the increase in the number of assemblies’ seats for a period of five years. We want to reform the situation, and parliament is the best forum to enable us to achieve the goal. If we question the very legitimacy of the situation will get complicated.
The alternative lies in agitation, which may pave the way for another military intervention. We have to steer the country out of chaos, not throw it into more chaos.
Q: The Supreme Court had empowered Gen Musharraf to amend the Constitution. While the rationale of empowerment can be debated, the verdict is binding and unchallengeable in any forum. It is said opposition parties should go by the judgment and accept the amendments made to the Constitution.
A: The Supreme Court itself has no authority to alter any provision of the Constitution and, therefore, it cannot give any such authority to any individual.
Under the LFO, the retirement age of superior court judges has been extended. And if somebody wants to challenge the matter, the apex court can’t hear it because it is a beneficiary of the impugned set of constitutional amendments. All lawyers’ organizations have decided not to take any matter of constitutional importance to the Supreme Court. The chief justice has become controversial as he did not retire on the date he should have retired on attaining the age of superannuation. There is a constitutional crisis in the country now.
Q: Whatever the viewpoint of political parties, the electorate in a way endorsed the LFO by taking part in the elections.
A: We have not rejected the elections. But you must keep in mind that we rejected the referendum and the nation also boycotted it.
Q: What has been the outcome of your talks with Chaudhry Shujaat Husain on the LFO?
A: Almost all important issues were settled in various rounds of talks. But the discussions reached a dead end when Gen Musharraf insisted that while functioning as president, he would also stay on as army chief. If we accept it, we’ll be undermining the supremacy of parliament and allowing continuation of military rule.
The ruling party had agreed that Gen Musharraf would dilute his powers under Article 58(2)(B) of the Constitution, and in serious situations will sack the cabinet alone, not the assemblies. And if the assembly re-elects the sacked prime minister, the president will have no objection to his reinduction.
On the controversial National Security Council, it was agreed that it would not be a part of the Constitution. Instead it would be set up through an act of parliament for a period of five years and the house will then be empowered to disband it through simple majority.
They had also agreed on withdrawing the decision about extension of the retirement age of the judges.
Similarly, it had been agreed that the local government system would be taken out of Schedule VI of the Constitution.
But the situation changed when by March 23 Gen Musharraf refused to set a date for giving up his military uniform.
Q: What mechanism was agreed upon for implementation of all this?
A: It was to go to parliament for approval with a two-thirds majority. The PML-Q and the MMA together are in a position to make any amendment to the Constitution.
Q: In effect, this means you had accepted the LFO but some changes were to be made in it in the light of the understanding between the two sides?
A: No. We had not accepted the LFO. We still don’t. The matter can be resolved by parliament alone.
Q: Was Chaudhry Shujaat really mandated by Gen Musharraf to hold talks with the MMA?
A: Chaudhry Shujaat was holding talks with us as head of the majority party in the assembly. The PML-Q and the MMA can even remove (impeach) the president with a two-thirds majority. Gen Musharraf can’t do us any harm if we adopt this course.
Q: Are you seriously proposing that Gen Musharraf should be removed as president through a parliamentary vote?
A: I am not talking of his removal. I’m offering a compromise formula. He should take back the LFO and we can give him safe passage to become president. But I fear that circumstances will overtake the offer and the country will face a more difficult situation than the one it is passing through at present.
Q: Some time back, you had branded Gen Musharraf a security risk. But now you are saying you are willing to get the same ‘security risk’ elected president through parliament if he doffs his military uniform. How would such a person be acceptable as president?
A: We called him a security risk because he was wearing so many caps at the same time and taking all decisions by himself. This means leaving the future of the country at the mercy of an individual. I recall how at a meeting with political leaders, Gen Musharraf looked afraid of the United States and explained why he had taken a U-turn on the Afghanistan issue. I told him that if he feared the US, he should shed the extra burden and leave the office of army chief.
Q: This means you are making an offer to legitimize what you have been calling unconstitutional so far.
A: The country is being governed unconstitutionally. The Constitution will not be restored in its entirety unless the president is elected afresh.
Q: What will be the status of a bill signed into law by what you call an unconstitutional president after having been passed by both houses of the present parliament?
A: It will have no legal status. It will be valid only when signed by a constitutionally elected president.
Q: The MMA is in power in the NWFP. Suppose the assembly passes a bill and sends it to the governor for assent. The governor, being a nominee of what you call an illegitimate president, will sign the same into law. Should or shouldn’t the provincial legislature refer such matters to the governor?
A: The entire situation will have to be set right. Unfortunately, the role of the judiciary has not been praiseworthy. We want to restore the supremacy of the Constitution. But the situation is complex.
Q: It can be argued that the best course would be to forget the past, accept the LFO and let the system work smoothly.
A: We can forget everything provided the other side accepts the supremacy of parliament. If Gen Musharraf insists that he should be accepted both as COAS and president, it won’t help us make a new beginning.
Q: Is there any possibility of the MMA joining the PML-Q-led coalition in case some agreement is reached?
A: It was possible in the past, not now. When the talks between the two sides started, the PML-Q was willing to make Maulana Fazlur Rehman deputy prime minister and accept the MMA’s nominee as the NA speaker. There was also an understanding that the PML-Q and the MMA would have equal representation in the cabinet. But as the talks failed, the plan could not be implemented.
We have no intention to join the cabinet even if there is a breakthrough now. We’ll sit on the opposition benches and play a constructive role.
Q: Why are you reluctant to accept Gen Musharraf as president when you had no qualms in extending cooperation to Gen Zia, who was also holding two offices concurrently?
A: Let me correct you, we had not accepted Gen Zia as president. He had promised that in his inaugural address to the 1985 assembly, he would set a date for relinquishing the office of the army chief. He didn’t. He was given a chit during his speech, which was a reminder that he should also address the subject. He crumpled it up and pocketed it. He did not honour his commitment.
Q: Still your attitude towards him was different.
A: We had not cooperated with Zia.
Q: It seems as if the Jamaat-i-Islami has bidden farewell to its ideology. Parties assaulted as bigger and lesser evils until recently are now your allies. Hardly any word is uttered against them. Why this change of heart?
A: For us, ideology is like faith. We can’t even think of compromising on it at any cost. However, political strategy can be changed to meet the requirements of the given situation.
The question of bigger or lesser evil is relevant only when a party is in power. At present, both of them are out of power. Both are weak and are being victimized.
Asif Zardari, for example, has served life term, although no charge has yet been proved against him.
Some leaders have been forced to leave the country. I am of the view that they should be allowed to come back. They should be tried under the law of the land. We want justice done even to our adversaries.
Our view that one party is the bigger or the other is a lesser evil is not an edict. Nor is it for all times to come. We had used these words for the two parties in a particular situation.
As for our cooperation with them at local level, it was more to improve our own performance than helping them. There’s nothing wrong with such adjustments in elections.
Q: Despite the fact that the ARD and the MMA seem so close to each other, the two alliances have failed to reach an understanding on who should lead the opposition in the National Assembly and the Senate.
A: The leader of the opposition in the National Assembly or the Senate will be nominees of the single largest party. It is for the NA speaker to determine which that party is. At present, we have 70 seats in the NA. The PPP began with 80 seats but was reduced to 56 after 24 of them parted ways to form the PPP- Patriots.The PML-N has some 13 or 14 seats.
As a matter of principle, it’s the MMA’s right to nominate its opposition leader. We have demanded that the mantle should go to Maulana Fazlur Rehman. Similarly, we have nominated Maulana Shah Ahmed Noorani for the position in the Senate.
The PML-N is staying neutral and has assured us that it will have no objection if the MMA nominees are appointed opposition leaders in both houses. Nobody should forget that the PPP and the PML-N are two separate entities.
Q: Pakistan is a nuclear power and religious parties have emerged here as a major political force in the country. Both are less likely to be tolerated by what are described as anti-Islam forces. What future in your opinion awaits the country?
A: A bright future is in store for the Islamic republic. People have identified their leadership. They are awake, intolerant of dictatorship. Apparently, the US supports a democratic system for Pakistan. But in fact it fears such a system here. We apprehend intrigues against democracy, though we want the system to continue.
The interview was conducted by Ashraf Mumtaz and Amjad Mahmood
KARACHI: ‘Faiz — the man and the time’ was the topic of the talk which Yusuf Jamal delivered at Karachi Gymkhana on Saturday evening. Mr Jamal, Advisor to the Provincial Ombudsman is quite known to Karachi’s intellectual elites.
Referring to the poetry collections which came from Faiz, right from Naqsh-e-Faryadi (1936-1942), Dast-e-Saba, Sar-e-Wadi-e-Seena, to Sham-e-Shaher-e-Yaraan (1997) and others, Mr Jamal said, Faiz was very close and his poetry relevant to his time. Quoting the preface he wrote in Dast-e-Saba, the speaker contended that it was the manifesto of his poetry, eulogising peace, and freedom and the concept of universal brotherhood. Faiz was a humanist and a visionary as he could see the present crisis in the Middle East, the unabated killing and barbarism perpetrated by the US imperialists in the region. Mr Jamal quoted from his verses written for Palestinians.
There was a thread of love and poetic sensibility which ran from Ghalib to Iqbal and lastly to Faiz, visualizing a promising future for all humans.
Mr Jamal recalled the evening of the year 1962 at Pakistan Arts Council, a reception held in Faiz’s honour before his travel to Moscow for receiving the Lenin Peace Prize. Faiz, a poet of prophetic vision and farsightedness, in his speech at Moscow gave a call for peace, also dismantling of the entire war machinery. The weapon around the world be drowned in the sea, he pleaded, and the fight for small pieces of land be stopped for all time. Let people struggle together in pursuit of peace and conquering the forces of nature.
In this regard, Faiz did not quote Lenin or any Soviet writer, but recited Hafiz Sherazi:
Kalal pazeer boad her bena ke me beeni
Mager benai-mohabbat ke khali uz kalal ast
(Each and every from that you come across around the world shall break up and perish due to its inherent weakness but not the love which is rooted on solid ground.)
In Naqsh-e-Faryadi, Faiz saw the fall of fascism during the World War-II; in Dast-e-Saba the ganging up of rising capitalists and the collusion of civil and military bureaucracy at the seat of power and the emergence of military alliances like CENTO and SEATO abroad, in Sar-e-Wadi-e-Seena, the situation in the Middle East focusing the Palestine. Sham-e-Shehre Yaraan reflects the poetry of his detention and exile. Elaborating his point, Mr Jamal said: “how can you detach the poet from his time?”
Paying tributes to Faiz for his remarkable optimism and patience, he said, he remained unrepentant and unmoved even when kept in solitary confinement in jail and quoted the following lines:
Jalva Gah-e-Wesaal ki Shamim
Woh bujha bhi chukey ager tau kiya
Chaand ko gul karen tau hum jaanain
The learned speaker quoted extensively from Faiz, lacing his discourse with anecdotes related to the poet and asked as to why researches were not made on his life and poetry in its various dimension. He narrated as to how the Nobel laureate, Prof Abdul Salam, admired Faiz, quoting his following couplet for his inquisitive nature:
Kai baar iski khatir zarre zarre ka jigar cheera
Mager yeh chashm-e-hairan jiski hairani naheen jati
Earlier Nasim Gandhi, on behalf of the Library and Adbi Committee of the Club, welcomed the guests.—Hasan Abidi
KAWISH writes that nobody in Sindh, except for the participants themselves, knows what happened in the last meeting of the Indus River System Authority.
Even Sindh Chief Minister Ali Mohammad Mahar seems to be unaware of what happened because he told journalists: “If any bureaucrat from Sindh has agreed to distribution of water meant for downstream Kotri areas between Punjab and Sindh, action will be taken against him. Irsa has been requested to provide minutes of the meeting and the provincial irrigation secretary has been asked to furnish a report on the Irsa session. The Sindh irrigation secretary does not have the authority to express any opinion which is contrary to the water accords.”
According to Kawish, the chief minister’s remarks show that the Sindh government is not sure what stand was taken by its representatives at the Irsa meeting. On the other hand, the claim of provincial officials about requesting another Irsa session has also been exposed by the clarification of the authority chairman that he has not received any request in this regard. Thus, great confusion has been created on the water issue, the paper says, and the Sindh irrigation officials are trying to misguide the people.
The daily says that the sensitive issue of water distribution calls for a serious and responsible attitude. The provincial government should tell the people about the real situation. Besides, it should pay attention to the affairs of the provincial irrigation department. During the last one and half years, the department has seen a change of six secretaries. What policies and strategies can be formulated on complex issues like the water dispute between Sindh and Punjab and the Thal canal project in these unstable circumstances?
Kawish says that the situation is damaging Sindh’s water case. Irsa’s decisions are not implemented, the interpretation by the ministry of law and justice is rejected and the Council of Common Interests is not being formed to debate the controversy. Instead, the matter is being pushed to the centre as Irsa decisions are sent to the chief executive’s secretariat or the prime minister’s secretariat issues directives to maintain the status quo.
The popular newspaper concludes that it is the responsibility of the Sindh government to brief the provincial assembly about the Irsa session as well as the latest developments in the matter of the Thal canal.
Commenting on the canal controversy, Ibrat writes that rejecting the claim of Sindh Revenue Minister Altaf Unnar, acting federal secretary for water and power Riaz Ahmad Khan has clarified that digging of the Thal canal is speedily continuing and civil and mechanical works are also going to be taken up soon so that the scheme is completed before the stipulated time. What message does this statement, coupled with the Wapda chairman’s utterances on the same issue and the Irsa’s latest decision, give to the people of Sindh, asks the daily.
It argues that in the present volatile international situation, it is imperative to resolve the country’s lingering problems which can only be done by providing justice to all. And water-starved Sindh demands nothing but justice in water distribution and other fields.
Awami Awaz takes up the privatization process, and says that it has only added to the miseries of the common people. Yet the government is determined to privatize national assets on the insistence of the IMF and the World Bank. The daily urges the government to formulate policies according to the ground realities and not at the dictates of donor agencies. It should refrain from privatizing profit-earning organizations.