| May 20, 2003 | Tuesday | Rabi-ul-Awwal 17, 1424 |
PML-N chief indicates limits to compromise
Parliament of Bangladesh continues to remain an ineffective body
NRB’s directive to provinces
FORTUNATELY firearms were not used in the recent clash between two student groups at the International Islamic University, otherwise the outcome could have been worse. Even then, no less lethal weapons than iron rods and bricks were used in the tussle between the two groups in which six students were injured.
Three weeks ago, violence also struck at Quaid-i-Azam University when a student pulled out a gun and shot and killed his fiancee before shooting himself. In early April, another student, who was shot at the campus hostel in February, died at PIMS. Earlier, during the annual admissions at the turn of the year, a group of students armed with iron rods had beaten up two students belonging to another group.
Worse cases of campus violence have occurred in other cities in the country, particularly in Karachi. It is unfortunate that despite the clear pattern of campus violence in Pakistan’s public universities over the years, the government has done little to reduce if not eliminate this by way of formulating and implementing a clear-cut policy against campus violence.
The issues that spark violence on campus are often trivial. The recent IIU clash, for instance, was over selection of the venue for a religious function. The shooting at the QAU hostel was over allocation of a hostel room. That such apparently normal issues should end up in aggression and tragedy is indicative of both an intolerant society as well as strong political rivalry on campus. Any policy on campus violence will have to address these two issues.
Aggressive behaviour on campus is not only restricted to students. There have been instances where faculty staff members are also known to behave in a manner, which does not behove their status and dignity.
In one case, a faculty member got so infuriated with his senior colleague that he violently swiped things off the latter’s table, hurled abusive and vulgar language, and practically tried to manhandle him when the latter tried to telephone the vice- chancellor. This faculty member, a known political activist, is believed to carry a gun with him always.
The same faculty member had also broken the lock of the room of a junior colleague, threw the latter’s belongings including books and papers out, and occupied the room forcibly. For several days before this, he had been abusing and threatening his junior colleague.
The issue in the above case is again an apparently trivial one: the faculty member had returned to rejoin the university after spending a year abroad and he insisted on having his former room although he was offered other, even better, rooms. The junior colleague resigned and left the university soon after the incident.
It is a well-known fact that in the majority of public universities in Pakistan, it is the various student groups with their “guardians” among the faculty members, who wield power. The result is that things often get done on campus on the basis of power politics - threats, harassment and intimidation - rather than on merit or in accordance with rules and regulations.
There are two types of “guardians” of student groups within the universities. One consists of those, who themselves are political activists - like the aggressive faculty member described above. The other consists of “meek” teachers and administrators, who generally have a soft corner for students whom they believe are able to stir up trouble because of their political affiliations.
It is the latter category who have ironically done more harm. The behaviour of these teachers has been responsible for compromising standards because they tend to mark students’ papers very leniently and set easy papers - so much so that an M.Sc. paper has been described as being equivalent to F.Sc. level! Lame duck administrators on the other hand have only served to encourage violence and other disruptive behaviour by not dealing firmly with such behaviour on campus.
The inability of most university authorities to break the hold of these student groups on campus and establish once and for all the writ of the university administration has been as much responsible as inadequate allocation of funds has been for the gradual decline in the academic standards and the quality of public tertiary education in Pakistan.
To correct the situation, universities in Pakistan need to address campus violence as a serious issue and consciously look at possible approaches and solutions to reduce violence and promote a safe and secure learning, living and working environment for both their students and faculty members.
First and foremost, universities need to put their foot down on campus violence. Zero tolerance for threats or acts of violence against students and faculty members should be the hallmark of any university’s policy on campus violence.
More than just beefing up patrol or security techniques and ensuring more gun control, universities need to spell out clearly that they will not tolerate any violence, threats, verbal harassment or intimidation, which can include oral or written statements, gestures, or expressions that communicate a direct or indirect threat of physical harm.
Not only that, the universities will need to show that they will take all reports of such incidents seriously, with individuals who commit such acts subject to disciplinary action including dismissal from employment, expulsion from the university, or civil or criminal prosecution.
On the other hand, values like civility, understanding and mutual respect that are intrinsic to excellence in teaching and learning and a productive academic environment, need to be nurtured and promoted through education and training initiatives on campus.
Finally, political parties ought to be cautioned against encouraging students to engage in intimidating and violent activities on campus, or to use students as pawns in their party politics. Student groups and bodies should only be confined to looking after the welfare of the students, and not that of the political masters.
ISLAMABAD: The following is the edited text of the Dawn Dialogue interview with Makhdoom Javed Hashmi, acting president of the Pakistan Muslim League-N:
Question: Bitter rivalry between the Pakistan People’s Party and the Pakistan Muslim League-N has been blamed for most of the recent military and presidential interventions to remove elected governments. Have you learnt any lessons from history?
Answer: I think definitely we have learnt a lesson from the situation, and I hope that this lesson will leave an impact on coming events. Maturity comes through a political process. But here, due to long intervals, most leaders and parties fell prey to cultism. However, with the passage of time, I think we have learnt a lot... and we have started believing that we should agree to disagree. This process is on. If the process stops, there will be immaturity and it will keep on increasing.
My point of view is that the path of mature leadership has always been blocked. After every 10 years or so, whenever a leader starts acquiring maturity, the mature leadership is politically eliminated. The 1947 leadership was all over in 1958, the remnants of 1958 and later years, like Mohammad Ali and others - the only exception is Nawabzada Nasrullah Khan - were not there in 1968. The new nursery of (Zulfikar Ali) Bhutto and Sheikh Mujibur Rehman and their political relevance began at the end of the 1960s and was over by the end of the 1970s. They were not allowed to grow further. Similarly, the relevance of Mohammad Khan Junejo and others was soon over. Then Nawaz Sharif and Benazir Bhutto were not allowed to complete their terms.
Q: Don’t you think the type of hostility that existed between the PPP and PML-N in the past is now seen between the military and opposition parties?
A: Whenever there is reconciliation between politicians, forces which like enmity (between political forces) come forward. For instance general elections had been announced in 1958 and all political forces were together, but they were told to go home. Then reconciliatory efforts began again in 1968; Ayub Khan went and new forces emerged in East and West Pakistan. Then in the 1970s, so long as we were fighting each other, it was liked and encouraged, but as soon as an agreement was reached (between the then prime minister Zulfikar Ali Bhutto and the opposition parties after the 1977 agitation), they (the army) took over.
Again in 1988, when Benazir came, there was a confrontation over Nawaz Sharif going to receive her at the airport and it was not liked by the powers that be when she went to his home and the two met there. Again in 1999, we made some unanimous amendments in the constitution,... this was not liked and there was an intervention. Whenever they decide to intervene, they search for a person with whom they want to engage, and I think in this politicians have not shown the required maturity. Whenever it was decided (by the military) that there should be no reconciliation, politicians were divided to block transfer of power to the people. Politicians start learning with the passage of time. I always differed with Zulfikar Ali Bhutto’s politics and perhaps I will continue to differ, but now I see these things from a different angle. I have learnt through the political process that every man is not an enemy. If I will not learn, my knowledge will remain limited.
Q: My question was whether the present enmity between politicians and the army is as bitter as it was between the PPP and the PML-N in the past.
A: Yes, the level is almost the same. But there is a small difference. There is more contempt for politicians on the part of the establishment and a record resentment among the masses against the role of the army.
Q: Is there any chance of a compromise with the army to bring your main leadership back to the country?
A: We have adopted the politics of compromise till now. We participated in the elections, came to the assembly, became part of the process and, to that extent, we were even ready to forget what happened in the past. But how can one compromise on issues like Schedule 6 (introduced in the Constitution through the Legal Framework Order). Ayub Khan and Ziaul Haq also said that laws could be initiated with the prior permission of the president, but these related to things of lesser importance like the Sheikh Zayed Trust. But now all institutions had been put under Schedule 6. For example, whatever restrictions were there on the press are under Schedule 6, and on this the right of legislation has ended. Compromise means that if the assemblies are there, they should be allowed to function. Banks, the State Bank, labour policy ordinances and several other issues related to the common person’s life, like economic affairs and decentralization issues-all have been protected in a way that we cannot make laws to improve these things.Till the day of judgment they are not ready to compromise on their right to rule.
Our parties have been marginalized and this has created a big vacuum. See what replacement they have brought. Mainstream parties or moderates have been marginalized and extremist forces have been encouraged. There is not even a single country among 186 where the same person is both a commander-in-chief and president. So to what extent we should go for a compromise? We want to give them passage for a respectable return (to the barracks). If compromise means that the army’s role should be perpetuated, that kind of compromise Ziaul Haq could not make. This cannot happen.
Q: Is there any chance of give and take on LFO?
A: Ziaul Haq did the same thing.They bargained and said okay take this and leave that. They say the NSC has been formed for that purpose. They wanted to get the referendum endorsed. He (Musharraf) wanted to remain army chief. On 58-2(b), there is some difference with the MMA as well. The MMA says that the right to dissolve a cabinet should be allowed under 58-2(b) instead of the dissolution of the whole assembly. We think 58-2(b) will become more dangerous and harmful if there is a provision to dissolve the cabinet. If the president dissolves the assembly, he is bound to hold elections within 90 days. But whether the LFO is a part of constitution or not, the president does not have the power to change the period of 90 days. If the president is given the power to dissolve the cabinet then it means that the prime minister will be virtually a subordinate of the president. The assembly will become a hostage indirectly.
Politicians have never compromised on the issue of uniform. We will not do justice to our history and future generations if we compromise on this. It’s an outdated and old-fashioned thing. There were many events in the past, but now they have learnt that a country cannot be run in this way. We are ready to accept our army as rulers if there is a single example in the world that a military ruler has been running a country successfully. They are our brothers, sons, cousins. But if we accept the domination of the army chief, then political resentment in all the other three provinces (besides the Punjab) which do not have much representation in the army can take a violent turn.
Q: Do you think the ongoing talks between the government and the opposition on the LFO will succeed?
A: The present committee is a recommendatory body. It is difficult to predict anything at the moment. We are people who fight a war of words and not a war of bullets. We like debates, discussion and dialogue. We are trying to present our arguments as long as someone is listening to us. We do not want to waste this opportunity. We believe that peace should be given a chance. We will try to ensure that the negotiations should be successful, but no party is in a position to compromise on basic issues.
Q: Are you convinced by the argument that the president should keep the office of army chief as well in the present international scenario?
A: In Iraq, there was a man who was very important and powerful. Has he succeeded in saving Iraq? An individual is nothing. An individual cannot replace an institution. Suppose, God forbid, if Musharraf dies today — though I pray for his long life — what will happen? I told this to General Zia also that he could’nt replace institutions. If you have done something good now, leave your good thoughts to the institutions so that these thoughts should be carried on. Otherwise, Ayub ruled for 11 years. Is there any person around who says Ayub is his leader? Similarly, who says Ziaul Haq is his leader? I am on record, I opposed president Zia when he came to address the parliament in uniform.... It is even difficult for Zia’s son to say that Ziaul Haq is his leader.
Q: President Musharraf has accused the leaders of both the PPP and PML-N of massive corruption. What do you say?
A: Every general has said that corruption is going on and he has come for accountability. Ayub Khan, Ziaul Haq and Musharraf have all said this. Ziaul Haq continued with accountability for 10 years. Ayub did the same thing. But corruption is not the real issue. Interestingly, several people they thought were corrupt have been made ministers or assembly speaker.
Q: What role has NAB played in this regard?
A: What change have they brought? Has society become corruption-free in the past more than three years during which not a single reference has been filed against any bureaucrat, general or any other official? This is no way to leave your accountability to the next government. When you say that accountability is across-the-board, then it should be across-the- board.
Q: What methods has NAB adopted to force politicians to change loyalties?
A: NAB is even now calling our people and forcing them to change their loyalties.... NAB has terrorized opponents of General Pervez Musharraf. In fact people were not afraid of going to jail but they were afraid of their image being tarnished. What will their children think of them? Politicians were never terrorized in that fashion in the past.
Q: Have people joined the “King’s Party” or PPP-Patriots willingly or due to this fear?
A: Obviously, they have not joined these parties willingly. Actually, they (the government) adopted three or four methods. The ISI was behind all this. First of all, during the elections, rigging was done and NAB was used as a weapon. The main roles were given to the ISI and NAB. Their main task was to coerce people. Some people were asked to change parties at the last moment.
First of all, they changed constituencies such as my home constituency which was reduced to one-fourth after all those areas from where I had been winning for the past 15 to 20 years were divided into pieces. Then I have evidence how the ISI was used in elections. For example, my party-fellows contesting polls for two provincial constituencies were asked to desert me. So I was flying without wings. This happened not only in my constituency, I am talking of the whole country.
They tried to restore the previous assembly. They invited all of us to come to the assembly minus Nawaz Sharif. We were ready to some extent. Shahbaz Sharif was also acceptable. For many parliamentarians, it was good news. They did not dissolve the assemblies for one year. They waited. They put people in jail, people even resisted.It was for the first time in the history of this country where a new Republican Party was formed in one night.Then they arranged meetings. Shujaat came to us at the residence of (retired) General Majeed in Lahore. Raja Zafarul Haq and Saranjam were there. He said we will go along with you. When we were going to announce that we would remain together, we waited for four hours for Chaudhry Shujaat who was forcibly stopped from attending the meeting. He was offered tea. He was being looked after. He was literally detained. Shujaat had said to me ten times that going with the army would be like signing your political death warrants. He said it many times and in front of many people. I am not discussing a single person, I am telling you about the modus operandi. Even then about 77 (PML-N) MNAs and senators resisted and said we would not join. That was why they could not restore the National Assembly and parliament. They wanted a rubber-stamp parliament. They were not interested in elections.
A large number of our winning candidates were asked to join the PML-Q at the last minute. For example, Rai Mansab Ali Khan remained with us till the last minute. Rana Nazir, who had spent some two and half years in jail. Similarly, in the People’s Party, several candidates who were expected to win the elections were asked either to join the PML-Q or to go to jail. If you are with us then come out of the jail and go to parliament. See the temptation and incentive — either you want to remain behind bars or you want to sit in parliament.
Q: Is the government negotiating with Benazir Bhutto or Nawaz Sharif?
A: Yes, there is some truth in such reports. But the government does not hold talks with them directly. They carry on a dialogue with them like Track-II policy with India. They said minus these two persons, we are ready to accept parties. So one is (considered) a security risk and the other enemy No. 1 because of a personal vendetta.
Q: It is said that the PML-N government fell because of the Kargil episode. Is it true?
A: Our Track-2 policy with India was on. Nawaz Sharif used to say that being a Kashmiri as well as a Punjabi, he was in a better position than others to talk to India, and he tried to normalize relations between the two countries. All discussions held by generals with India remained inconclusive. Whenever the generals held talks, the end result was war. But when politicians held talks - whether they were useful or harmful - there was Shimla Accord and the Lahore Declaration ...Talks were being held on removing travel restrictions on Kashmiris by softening the Line of Control so they could interact with each other and have inter-marriages.
It was under discussion that this process would continue and after about five or four years, their (Kashmiris’) opinion would be sought. India would reduce its army in Kashmir — perhaps bring it to four lakhs or two lakhs or even one lakh from seven lakhs. We were ready that we will also take steps to stop infiltration by encouraging the local Kashmiri leadership and, ultimately, they would decide their own fate or destiny.
These things were going on, but three men (generals) had reservations - with the aim of taking revenge for the Indian incursion in Siachen. However, the leadership was never consulted for planning an action. They never felt that it was required. When Vajpayee came, there were several symbolic things. Number one he came by bus. India was not talking from a position of strength or hegemony. They wanted to talk from a lower level while today they want to talk from a position of strength. Secondly, he (Vajpayee) stood before Minar-i-Pakistan and accepted the reality of Pakistan.
Kargil was discussed at the DCC (Defence Committee of the Cabinet), and Shujaat Sahib has said that Nawaz Sharif left the meeting saying why he was not informed (about the operation). What more proof can be there of the fact that the prime minister was not taken into confidence? It is strange that you are attacking such a big enemy and you are not taking your prime minister into confidence.
Later, when this had happened, all the three (services) chiefs were present and they regretted when they came under pressure. They apologized to Nawaz Sharif, saying that they had committed a mistake: we could not inform you. I have said this ten times...and no one has contradicted this.
When he (Nawaz Sharif) came back (from the United States), Pervez Musharraf received him and said you saved not only the country, but also saved the army from disgrace by putting your own career at stake, and that the army would never forget this favour.
Q: Then what caused the misunderstanding between Nawaz Sharif and Pervez Musharraf?
A: When all these things were going on, they were afraid and feeling insecure, as they knew that they had done all this. But he (Nawaz Sharif) said that whatever has happened, he would not destroy his own army.
Q: What was behind the appointment of Gen Ziauddin Butt as the new army chief?
A: That was at the last moment. It was a preemptive move. I was with Nawaz Sharif in the last air travel to Multan, where he received information that a lot of changes were taking place.Security and everything have been changed at the PM’s house. We were at Shujaabad. I was the only cabinet minister who was with Nawaz Sharif at that time.
Q: You mean you had received information that there was going to be a coup?
A: Yes, of course. They had even decided the date.
Q: What do you say about Mian Nawaz Sharif’s clash with three army chiefs of staff?
A: It’s not three but five. The reasons are very obvious. Start with Aslam Beg. Aslam Beg took a stand with Saddam Hussein and then made it public. On this, he (Nawaz Sharif) said I am the chief executive, and I will give you policy.
When General Asif Nawaz came (as COAS), he launched an operation in Karachi. He was told that crime was under control, 16 to 17 MQM MNAs were with us and there was no need for the Karachi operation. He was told that there was no need to interfere in day-to-day affairs. It was not a personality clash, but on issues. Similarly, Gen Kakar became a party with Ghulam Ishaq Khan, and Nawaz Sharif said that he would not take dictation. Gen Jahangir Karamat issued a public statement and said there was need for the National Security Council. On this, Nawaz Sharif asked him to resign from the office for issuing public statements. Then came Gen Musharraf and there was the Kargil episode. He was after all sacked by an elected prime minister. Look at history, Caliph Omar sacked Khalid bin Waleed who was commander of the army and was given the title of Saifullah by Holy Prophet (peace be upon him).
— The Dawn Dialgoue panel comprised M. Ziauddin, Raja Asghar, Ahmad Hasan Alvi, Ihtasham-ul-Haque, Aileen Qaiser, and Amir Wasim.
THE just concluded four-day session of the Jatiya Sangsad has once again showed that the parliament of Bangladesh continues to remain ineffective, especially in ensuring accountable governance - thanks to the mainstream political parties’ lack of commitment to parliamentary practices.
The session had an uninspiring beginning on May 8, with the leader of the opposition, Sheikh Hasina, announcing at the outset her party’s boycott of the parliament’s session. Then it had a lacklustre ending on May 13, with the leader of the house, Prime Minister Begum Khaleda Zia, absent from the floor and that too at a time when the treasury benches have yet to nominate a deputy leader.
The treasury members on the parliament’s business advisory committee, the body deciding the length of a session and the issues to be discussed in that session, refused to entertain an opposition demand for debates over certain ‘pressing issues’ like the deteriorating law and order situation, spiralling price hike in essential commodities, inadequate supply of power, the recent controversial reinstatement of a former army officer and so on.
The treasury bench leaders did not even hesitate to disclose in the meeting on May 8 that they were holding the session “only to meet the constitutional obligation” to have sittings of parliament every two months, clearly implying that the session would be a ceremonial one instead of providing a forum for debates on issues confronting the nation.
And as for ensuring accountability of government activities by regular scrutiny of its actions, there is hardly any scope for this. Just five parliamentary committees, out of a total of 36, were constituted only a night before the prorogation of this short-lived session.
In the last parliament, the Awami League took 17 months to form parliamentary committees. But the BNP has defeated the AL by two more months, and that too to constitute just five committees. In addition to all these, the MPs are virtually forbidden, under Article 70 of the constitution, to speak in the House against the official line of their respective parties.
In this situation, the lawmakers are clearly left with almost nothing effective to do. So it is not surprising that no sitting of parliament begins on time due to want of quorum, which requires 60 MPs out of 300 to be present.
It is also not surprising that the legislators, when they enter the house, keep themselves busy admiring their respective leaders and criticising those of the rival camps. A Transparency International Bangladesh (TIB) survey report, released on May 2, shows that the lawmakers have praised their respective top leaders 493 times and harshly criticised the leaders of their rival camps 367 times during 38 working days spread over the fourth, fifth and sixth sessions of the present parliament.
What do the MPs do then? An official proposal from a ruling BNP lawmaker, Abdul Mannan, provides the clue. He proposed, on May 11, an amendment to the rules of procedure seeking insertion of a social, political and financial ‘code of conduct’ for legislators. His proposed code includes, among other things, refraining from taking bribes, not indulging in lobbying with the administration for anyone in exchange for money, abstaining from abusing the provision of allowances, informing the house beforehand of personal financial interests involved in the enactment of new laws and amendment/repeal of the old ones.
The proposal clearly indicates that the Mannan believes, in line with the public impression of the MPs, that many of his colleagues take bribes, recommend things in exchange for material gain, abuse the provision for their allowances and influence the bodies concerned to enact/amend/scrap laws for personal interests.
Mr Mannan’s move is a good one. But it will be difficult to implement the idea, given the fact that a large number of members, having hardly any political background as such, bought nominations from the mainstream parties at a very high price. Then they spent about half a crore takas each to secure their election to parliament. For them, mostly businessmen, the entire expenditures was a kind of investment, which has to be recouped with profit during the five-year term of parliament.
Awami League leader Hasina Wazed staged a stormy walkout and announced boycott of the rest of the session, apparently in protest against the switching off her microphone by the chair, in this case the deputy speaker, while she blasting the government for reinstating in the foreign service Major (rtd) Khairuzzaman - an accused in the murder case of four AL leaders in prison some 28 years ago. The chair did so on the plea that Ms Wazed was making an ‘unscheduled’ statement in violation of the rules. Interestingly, the abrupt closure of the issue deprived the treasury benches of the opportunity of informing the house that Ms Wazed’s own government had kept the officer in jail for the first three and half years without any charge and that he had got his job back through the verdict of an administrative tribunal.
KAWISH this week takes up the issue of the National Reconstruction Bureau’s directive to provinces to extend the duration of last year’s provisional provincial awards to one more year and writes that the way in which the NRB has issued the directive suggests that it is superior to parliament.
The daily says that the NRB is not a representative institution as it is neither an elected body nor works under an elected institution. Besides, provinces do not have any representation in the bureau. After the general elections, the NRB should have ceased to act as a policy-making institution by handing over this authority to parliament. Therefore, Kawish suggests, the status of the NRB should be changed to that of a recommendatory institution to uphold the supremacy of parliament.
The paper says that a decision should also be taken about permanent provincial financial awards to remove uncertainty about the future of the local government system. However, the biggest obstacle in the way of permanent provincial financial awards is the absence of any decision about convening the National Finance Commission due to which affairs related to the NFC award are being run on an ad-hoc basis. This is despite the fact that three of the provinces have strong objections to the extension of the 1996 NFC award as they find themselves short of funds under it.
The paper advises the federal government to convene a meeting of the NFC to prepare the new national financial award to prepare provincial financial awards on a permanent basis.
Sindhu says that with the reduction in oil prices, transport fares also should have been decreased. But transporters are still charging old fares because the transport ministry has taken no step to transfer the benefit of reduction to the people. As a result, common citizens are suffering as on the one hand they have to pay exorbitant transport fares and on the other prices of essential commodities remain high because transportation charges have not been changed. The paper calls on the transport authorities to ensure a reduction in transport fares in line with the decrease in oil prices.
Tameer-i-Sindh welcomes the Sindh government decision to lift the ban on recruitment in government departments and insists that the process of recruitment should begin as soon as possible. But, it stresses, the process must be transparent and free of any political interference. The jobs should be provided only on the basis of merit and should not be sold out as has been the practice in the past.
Ibrat refers to the protest of residents of Karo Khahoo Deh, Kotri Taluka, who have complained that due to a change in the layout of the Right Bank Outfall Drain, 50 villages and hundreds of acres of farm land in the area are going to be affected. The paper alleges that the drain layout has been changed to save the land of some politically influential people. It insists that while laying the drain, it should be ensured that villages and farm land are not devoured by it.
Sach opposes the proposal of handing over control of the Keenjhar Lake to the Thatta district government on the ground that it would tighten the grip of a particular political group on the resources of the district. According to the paper, the district government has already destroyed the education and health sectors of the area and turned the district heads of these departments into “kamdars (estate managers)” of the group. That is why residents of the area, including some MPAs, are opposed to the idea of handing over the lake to the district government.