WHETHER it is the approach of the Saarc summit, or international pressure, India has been taking steps that suggest that it may resume the dialogue with Pakistan that was interrupted under the impact of the 9/11 events. The latest indication was the statement by Mr. Vajpayee during his talks with President Putin in Moscow that India had not rejected dialogue with Pakistan.

The information minister, Shaikh Rashid Ahmad, who attended the Saarc moot of information ministers in New Delhi, was upbeat about the prospects, and gave voice to high expectations from Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee. Prime Minister Zafarullah Jamali himself has been making optimistic statements, and even expressed readiness to go to New Delhi to push the process of dialogue. He has also written to Mr. Vajpayee in this regard.

The frequency of positive gestures has increased, without a concrete step towards a composite dialogue of the type that had been initiated before the 9/11 events. India has come out with its own proposals for reducing tensions, such as the twelve confidence-building measures (CBMs) proposed on October 22 this year, which made no reference to the core issue of Kashmir. However New Delhi has not taken serious notice of Pakistan’s response, based on accepting these CBMs but suggesting the inclusion of the Kashmir issue in the agenda of resumed talks. President Musharraf’s four-point proposal for taking up the Kashmir issue in a manner that leaves out the traditional positions of the two sides, and explores a settlement that may be acceptable to the three parties involved, i.e. India, Pakistan and the people of Kashmir, has not elicited a positive response either.

The ‘take it or leave it’ approach on its own initiatives adopted by New Delhi reflects an attitude of great power chauvinism based on confidence in its standing in the post-cold war world. Indian diplomacy has been a beneficiary of the paradigm shift in the global perceptions since the end of the cold war. It may be pertinent to recall the historical evolution of regional and global perceptions, since the end of the cold war, to put the prospects for dialogue in perspective.

New Delhi had moved deftly, to take advantage of the fundamental shift in western global perspective in 1989 in order to end its isolation resulting from its non-aligned policy, combined with the alliance with Moscow during the cold war. The two main concerns of the West, after the defeat of the Soviet Union in the cold war, were non-proliferation, and countering the perceived threat from the Islamic world. Though India had led the way in developing nuclear capability in the region, the West felt comfortable with that on account of India’s potential role in containing China as well as Muslim militancy. Pakistan on the other hand was subjected to sanctions from 1990 onwards, on account of its nuclear programme and was also seen as a potential threat as a state founded on the basis of Islamic ideology.

Another consequence of the end of the cold war was a democracy movement all over the world, with the most far reaching results in Eastern Europe where the pulling down of the Berlin Wall signified the end of tyranny of the Soviet Communist dictatorship. Among the areas affected by the democracy movement was Indian-occupied Kashmir, where an indigenous uprising took place against the Indian rule that had paid no heed to the desire of the people of Kashmir to be liberated from forcible occupation. As the movement gathered momentum, and India resorted to brutal repression, there was widespread sympathy in Pakistan for the Kashmiri struggle.

The elected governments that took office in Pakistan after years of military rule felt obliged to reflect the popular feeling on the continued violation by India of its obligations under resolutions of the Security Council. The Gulf War of 1991 had seen a revival of the role of the UN, and served to reinforce the liberation struggle by the Kashmiris, who launched an armed struggle against military repression by India. Many Kashmiris who had been forced to migrate to Pakistan began to trickle back across the Line of Control to join the local Mujahideen. Some of the Mujahideen from other countries who had joined the Afghan resistance against the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan also began to extend their support to the Kashmiri struggle.

India found it expedient to blame Pakistan for the souring of Indo-Pakistan relations by this upsurge of insurgency after seventeen years of relative calm in Kashmir following the Simla Agreement of 1972. It called the Kashmiri freedom fighters “separatists” and “terrorists”, although the worst atrocities and human rights violations were perpetrated by the Indian military and para-military forces whose number mounted steadily, till it reached 700,000 by 2000. India held Pakistan responsible for igniting the insurgency in Kashmir, and for sustaining it by encouraging and arming militants. Insisting on its stance that Kashmir was “an integral part” of India, New Delhi blamed Pakistan for creating instability within its territory. However, Pakistan stood by its stance that Kashmir was a disputed territory, whose people were struggling for the right of self-determination, promised under UN resolutions that India had accepted.

With its new diplomatic leverage, fast growing economy and increasing military strength, India became even more intransigent. The rest of the world did not take the Kashmir dispute very seriously, despite the massive violations of human rights taking place there. When the BJP formed the government in New Delhi in 1998, it decided to go nuclear, to ensure a great power status Indian leaders had aspired for since independence. India also expected to acquire unchallengeable superiority over Pakistan. As it happened, Pakistan felt obliged to conduct nuclear tests soon after India, and this resulted in strategic parity that Pakistan had lacked in conventional weapons.

With the tension over Kashmir now seen likely to unleash a nuclear conflict, the international concern over the dispute grew. UN Security Council Resolution 1172, passed in early June, 1998, not only called for adherence by the two countries to CTBT and NPT, but also urged efforts to resolve their political disputes, notably that over Kashmir, peacefully. The sole superpower undertook shuttle diplomacy to promote non-proliferation, and in the meantime to encourage a political dialogue.

The evolving situation in Afghanistan became a factor in the tensions in South Asia. After initially backing the Taliban, the US became concerned when the regime continued to play host to Osama bin Ladin, the Saudi dissident who had been used by the CIA against the Soviets, but had to seek sanctuary in Afghanistan after the US walked out of Afghanistan following the Soviet withdrawal. He launched a jihad against the US after it stationed troops in Saudi Arabia, and kept extending total support to Israel to the detriment of the Arabs. After the terrorist attacks on US embassies in Nairobi and Daressalam were traced to Osama, the US even rained cruise missiles on Afghanistan in August 1998.

India was able to persuade the US that the Taliban were supporting “terrorism” in Kashmir, and training freedom fighters who were infiltrating into the state, with the alleged cooperation of Pakistan. During the visit of President Clinton to South Asia in March 2000, the US and India formed a working group against terrorism. During his short stay in Islamabad, Clinton urged Pakistan to end support to militant groups active in Kashmir. When the 9/11 events traced the attack on the US to the terrorist “Al Qaeda” organization, based in Taliban-ruled Afghanistan, New Delhi sensed another change in global perceptions it could exploit to its advantage.

With terrorism in the spotlight, India sought to capitalize on Pakistan’s erstwhile support to the Taliban, as well as on Islamabad’s backing to the Kashmiri intifada. Pakistan’s decision to join the anti-terrorist coalition meant a U-turn in Afghanistan that had the effect of alienating the Pakhtun element of the Afghan population. As Pakistan’s recognition of the Taliban had earlier forced the Northern Alliance to forge an alliance with India, the post-9/11 events also redounded to India’s advantage in Afghanistan, just as the post-cold war trends had proved beneficial for India’s global diplomacy.

Pakistan’s post-9/11 stance, and the major role it is playing in the war against terrorism, have considerably improved its relations with the sole superpower, which also attaches importance to its role as a moderate, and progressive Muslim power within the Islamic world.

However, the US has a strategic partnership with India, which is perceived as a major market, and a potential counterweight to China’s growing power. Therefore, the US, while wishing to promote peace in South Asia by facilitating a dialogue, is reluctant to press India to resolve the Kashmir issue. The other major powers, such as the European Union and Russia are also supportive of India. As such, India’s readiness to engage in a dialogue appears to be contingent on Kashmir being put on the back burner, while other issues are addressed.

The western analysts also consider that India’s reluctance to engage in a dialogue arises out of Pakistan’s support to the militant struggle inside Kashmir, which has the effect of shedding Indian blood. As India has no intention of abandoning its physical occupation of Kashmir, the onus for enabling a dialogue is placed on Pakistan. It can accept progress on other non-controversial matters, such as communications, trade, cultural exchanges and other aspects of regional cooperation, without insisting on the immediate inclusion of Kashmir. India feels it is on a strong wicket, internally, and externally, and Pakistan risks an internal implosion if it engages in an arms race with India, which has access to technology and weapons from many sources. Any optimism that India may soon agree to a composite dialogue, or accept an expansion of the Saarc’s mandate must be tempered with realism, based on this broad perspective.

As Pakistan will be hosting the Saarc summit in early January next year, can we at least count on an informal exchange of views with Mr. Vajpayee in the sidelines? Again one needs to be cautious even about expecting Mr.Vajpayee to come personally. Even while inaugurating the ministerial level Saarc meetings in New Delhi during this month, he was far from communicative, and a question mark continues to hang over his participation. Hopefully, he will be swayed by a desire to demonstrate India’s commitment to the goals of Saarc by leading his country’s delegation.

Though he is undoubtedly keen to go down in history as a peacemaker, he will be persuaded by BJP stalwarts to maintain a tough stance over Kashmir in a year that will be marked by general elections. The condition implied in Indian initiatives for normalizing relations so far has been to exclude Kashmir from the immediate agenda. India’s obduracy has been fed by its nexus with advocates of pre-emption like Israel and the US. It may take changes of leadership as a result of Indian and US elections next year to produce a sea change in the current power-based international order.

The writer is a former ambassador of Pakistan.

COMPARISONS between political figures can, at times, be quite odious, especially when it involves prime ministers who are not contemporaries. In Pakistan, a comparison has frequently been made between Mohammed Khan Junejo and Mir Zafarullah Khan Jamali. I suppose this is inevitable.

There are, after all, many similarities and also a few differences between the two prime ministers. Junejo served under the worst kind of military dictator who gave the word obscurantism a new dimension and meaning. Jamali, on the other hand, is still serving under a military dictator who, in spite of his other failings, and his total disregards for the poor and dispossessed, still retains a secular outlook, much to the relief of the West.

Both men belong to minority provinces. Both were political lightweights, and were handpicked by unelected military presidents anxious to retain power at all costs. But there are significant differences between the two. Though Junejo did not come to power through the electoral process as Jamali did, during the short time that he was at the helm of affairs he grew considerably in stature. An honest, upright and essentially simple person, he asserted himself and demonstrated that he had a mind of his own. Much of his wrath was directed against corruption and inefficiency which he found in government circles. He was no great admirer of the military, and hated the cant and hypocrisy of the administrators who had really no intention of serving the people.

A newspaper wag at the time quipped that the trouble with Junejo was that he took his job too seriously. Prime ministers in Pakistan are not supposed to work, but to go on junkets at the peoples’ expense. But Junejo had other ideas. He went after the bureaucracy and insisted that the mandarins who enjoyed the kind of perks that ministers in India were not entitled to, should give up their limousines and travel in 800 c.c. cars. One rather irate secretary of the government, who had been appointed chief executive of a ‘taken-over industry,’ went up to him and complained that he had waited for thirty years for the privilege of driving a 1600 cc. car.

Junejo gave the complainant a patient hearing and asked him his vocation. On hearing that the latter was a senior civil servant, the prime minister asked the government man with a twinkle in his eye, how he proposed to convince the inhabitants of a katchi abadi that he was a servant of the people, if he drove into their hovel in a huge luxury vehicle paid for by the taxpayer..

Finally, egged on by some of his minions, Junejo ruffled the feathers of the army brass, and realized too late, that he was treading on dangerously thin ice. The inquiry into defence purchases and the Ojhri Camp disaster, which he initiated, never took place, but it sealed Junejo’s fate. He was unceremoniously turfed out of office at the height of his popularity. He outlived Ziaul Haq, who met his death when a helicopter spiralled out of control, and died shortly after. The obituaries in the country’s papers outdid one another in their praise for this unpretentious man. One Sindhi newspaper paid Junejo the final tribute when the editorial stated that in spite of what had happened, he was the very first person to turn up at the funeral of General Ziaul Haq. If there is a black mark against his rule, it is that he started the ridiculous trend of supplying parliamentarians with funds for development in their areas, a practice which MNAs and senators relished, as they spent these funds with a certain panache, often for the wrong reasons...

Jamali, on the other hand, has failed to grow in office. Numerous attempts have been made by not only members of the King’s party but also opposition MNAs to get him to assert himself and to take a stand on issues that are really important, like the LFO which is inhibiting parliament to function as a responsible body. A year ago, when he took the oath, he was brimming with confidence, and even though he lived constantly under the shadow of the army, optimists hoped that he would at some point or the other, induce the president to compromise on the issue of the uniform.

Now, a year later, he is where he started, on the bottom rung of the ladder, heading a government which is heading nowhere. In meetings and interviews he comes across as a man whose opinions are fashioned by somebody else, and on television he appears on the defensive and ill at ease.

Nevertheless, the pet grouse of the critics is that he is afraid to take risks. The only time he appears to have been stirred into action was when the budget had to be passed; so that parliamentarians could get their salaries and allowances, which have, to the utter astonishment of the public, now been doubled. On November 7, addressing a group of newsmen at parliament house, Jamali said that he was not fully satisfied with the one-year performance of the two houses of parliament. This must be the classic understatement of the decade.

In 51 weeks 84 sessions of the lower house were held. In every session MNAs belonging to the MMA, PPP and Nawaz’s faction of the Muslim League, resorted to prolonged and noisy protests against the Legal Framework Order.

At the start of each parliamentary session, opposition MNAs, after they had given their desks a resounding thumping, were united in a single refrain, ‘No LFO, go Musharraf go. Once the chant, which had some of the belligerence of the Kikuyu warrior, had died down, these worthy ladies and gentlemen would boycott the rest of the proceedings by refreshing themselves in the canteen, or slip away to admire the beauty of the Margalla Hills.

The record of the pro-government legislators was also not very laudable. Many of them had a remarkable sense of timing and managed to avoid the proceedings altogether. There was invariably a problem of attendance, and due to the lack of quorum many sessions could not continue. But what really put the lid on things was that the speaker drew repeated reference to the fact that many ministers did not attend either the regular sessions or question hour.

The situation deteriorated to such an extent that Jamali had to resort to some sort of police action to ensure that coalition party members attended parliamentary party meetings, before they trotted into the assembly. In England such people are referred to as whips, but they don’t employ the services of the metropolitan police.. This worked for a time, but 30 MNAs defiantly stayed out in the cold. Perhaps a good way to handle the problem of non-attendance is to dock parliamentarians for the sessions they miss, and to pay them for the sessions they attend.. It’s time a register was kept in the national assembly. As the MNAs are graduates, one could do away with the thumbprint.

Against this kind of scenario, where opposition as well as treasury benches are guilty of dereliction of duty and breach of etiquette, and where the president is not allowed to address the joint session of parliament, but cannot be stopped from addressing the general assembly of the United Nations and the summit of the tenth session of the Organization of Islamic Conference, Prime Minister Jamali went ahead and doubled the salaries and allowances of the parliamentarians, which will cost the exchequer an additional eight and a half crore rupees.

The final straw came when he decided to give separate offices to the 40 chairmen of the national assembly standing committees in the state bank building in Islamabad, where three floors have been vacated. The chairmen are also being provided with their own secretariats and, wait for it — 1300 c.c. air conditioned Toyota limousines, costing the taxpayer fifty million rupees.. All this for passing the budget? What a dedication to redundancy. It does make people ask the inevitable question: can Pakistan really afford a democracy?

email: a-mooraj@cyber.net.pk

The right of self-determination, defined as a fundamental right in its charter, became one of the chief goals of the United Nations. There could be no genuine exercise of the individual rights without the realization of this right. It has attained universal acceptance and now serves as a guide to the nations in formulating their policies on human rights.

Since its establishment in 1945, the United Nations played an important role towards the development of the right of self-determination. The Universal Declaration of the Human Rights, adopted by the UN General Assembly on December 10, 1948, was a significant step in this direction. The United Nations also adopted two important covenants in the furtherance of this Declaration to enable all peoples to freely determine their political status and pursue their economic, social and cultural development.

The three regional conventions on human rights, adopted separately by Europe, America and the African countries, also recognized the right of self-determination as an inalienable right of man. The sanctity of this right has also been upheld by the International Court of Justice on a number of occasions. Thus, the right of self-determination, embodied in the UN charter and in other international instruments, has become the most important of the principles of international law and constitutes the basis for other principles.

The United Nations also attached great importance to the protection of the right of self-determination. In this connection attention is particularly invited to the UN General Assembly resolution, adopted on December 9, 1991, on measures to eliminate international terrorism. This resolution, however, emphasized that “nothing in the present resolution could, in any way, prejudice the right of self-determination, freedom and independence, as derived from the charter of the United Nations, particularly under the colonial and racist regimes or other forms of alien domination”.

Regrettably, however, the United Nations, notwithstanding its resolution 1514 of December 14, 1960, which solemnly proclaimed “the necessity of bringing to a speedy and unconditional end of colonialism, in all its forms and manifestations” has not been able to achieve this objective. One cannot ignore the fact that colonialism persists under the guise of nationalism and its desire for political, economic and military domination continues to exist.

The subjection of peoples to alien subjugation, domination and exploitation constitutes a denial of fundamental human rights and is contrary to the charter of the United Nations and is an impediment to the promotion of world peace and co-operation. The long standing Kashmir and Palestine problems are the most glaring examples of the deprivation of the inalienable right of self-determination to the peoples of these territories. In some other parts of the world also the neo-colonialism has raised its ugly head. President Bush’s doctrine of pre-emption, enunciated and invoked by him to invade Iraq, with a coveted eye on its natural resources, is a case in point.

The right of self-determination is a collective right the beneficiaries of which are peoples. The charter of the United Nations, accordingly, speaks of “self-determination of peoples”. As a corollary of this, the right of self-determination can only be exercised by the peoples themselves and not by potentates, kings and Maharajas, on their behalf. It may be recalled that in compliance with this principle the United Nations refused to accept the “accession” of the State of Jammu and Kashmir to India on the basis of the so-called “Instrument of Accession”, purported to have been signed by the ruler of the state, Maharaja Hari Singh. Instead, the UN pronounced that “the final dispensation of the state of Jammu and Kashmir will be made in accordance with the will of the people expressed through the democratic method of a free and impartial plebiscite conducted under the auspices of the United Nations”. Democracy is indeed indispensable to ensure self-determination.

The relevant UN resolutions pertaining to the disputed territory of Jammu and Kashmir remain legally valid and binding on the parties concerned so long as the people of the territory are not afforded an opportunity to exercise their inalienable right of self-determination, through a plebiscite under the UN auspices. The Simla Agreement concluded in 1972 between the governments of Pakistan was not Kashmir-specific. It nonetheless, binds the two countries to seek a peaceful solution to the Kashmir dispute.

The UN General Assembly, in its resolution of December 7, 1987, called upon all states to implement fully and faithfully all the resolutions of the United Nations concerning the exercise of self-determination by the peoples under colonial and foreign domination. However, India continues to flout the UN resolutions and deny the people of Kashmir their inalienable right of self determination, with impunity. Massive violations of human rights by the Indian forces are also a daily occurrence in occupied Kashmir.

In its resolution of December, 17, 1999, the General Assembly requested the Commission on Human Rights to give special attention to the violations of human rights, especially the right of self-determination, resulting from foreign military intervention, aggression and occupation. The Secretary General was also asked to report on this question to the General Assembly, on a regular basis. Accordingly, the Secretary General does the needful annually under the General Assembly’s agenda item “Right of peoples to self-determination” which, however, has become something of a ritual and has proved to be a pointless exercise.

India’s policy of oscillation on Kashmir, being pursued by it consistently, was a deliberate attempt on its part to maintain its illegal occupation of Kashmir and was a stumbling block to the resolution of this problem. In response to international pressure, the Indian prime minister, Atal Behari Vajpayee, in April this year, made an offer of talks to Pakistan which carried no preconditions. However, shortly thereafter he made it contingent upon the complete cessation of the alleged infiltration from across the Line of Control which is, a favourite Indian theme to distract attention from its real intention of stalling a dialogue with Pakistan to resolve the Kashmir dispute, as stipulated in the Simla Agreement. India is not agreeable to a viable mechanism to monitor both the sides of the Line of Control which exposed the hollowness of its allegation of infiltration from Azad Kashmir.

Recently, India proposed a series of confidence building measures which are meant only to serve as a public relations exercise and also to score points over Pakistan. Yet, Pakistan responded positively to these proposals. It is, however, disappointing that India has chosen not to respond to Pakistan’s constructive proposal for the resumption of a composite dialogue between the two countries to resolve all their outstanding problems, including the core issue of Kashmir. New Delhi’s reluctance to hold the proposed talks with Pakistan is undoubtedly devoid of logic and pragmatism.

The writer is a former ambassador of Pakistan

The parliament today owes its very existence to unprecedented and massive rigging. The electoral process has never been perfect in this country and the contestants have progressively done their best to cut corners at every stage, starting from the compilation of the electoral rolls right up to the counting and recounting of the votes. The political parties have acquired an expertise in cheating which they practise to the hilt.

But the last time round it was the military rulers that outdid them all. As a consequence it would be safe to assume that about half the membership of assemblies, right from union councils to the senate, consist of individuals who neither have the calibre nor the right to be there at all.

Thus, the bogus democracy that the country is saddled with today started with the elections to union, tehsil and district councils in which every rule/law was violated and all malpractices resorted to. The most defiant illegality was the open participation of political parties in these declaredly partyless polls, by issuing tickets, canvassing, office-holders supervizing polling stations and later on announcing victories of their candidates.

The army and all other officers concerned did not only remain silent spectators to such offences but also allowed the kidnapping of voters, purchase of votes, stuffing of ballot boxes and manipulating of counts, etc. They also openly practised favouritism and sponsorship, the Election Commission and the judiciary being the biggest culprits in this crime against true democracy. The pattern was laid for the ensuing defiantly-rigged presidential referendum, so much so that later the president himself had to concede the fact and publicly apologize for it, although he nevertheless sticks to the results. Similarly, in the general elections no one lost the chance to rig and violate all norms of fair play and decency.

The National Assembly and the Senate alone cost the people more than Rs 75 crore a year. The provincial assemblies cost more. But what good are they? Except for the budget, which had to be pushed through, not a single law has been passed. Nor do the assemblies serve the purpose of providing a facade of democracy. While the opposition misses no chance to expose the government for its failure, the government side has also proved to be quite useless even in defending the government in or outside the house.

President Musharraf continues to call the shots and military rule is undisguised, justifying itself purely on the verdict of the acquiescent judges of the Supreme Court. Even the government’s pleas to the Commonwealth and the European Union for restoration and acceptance are rejected on the grounds that there is no democracy in Pakistan. How can it be otherwise when the situation is such that the president cannot enter the Assembly to discharge his constitutional obligation of addressing the joint session?

The sabre rattling that has gone on for one year between the government and opposition has now left both sides exhausted. While the government holds on, the opposition also does not want to upset the apple cart, simply because neither side is confident about its political status and popularity. They certainly do not want to go to the people again to test it as they know that the voters are disgusted. Thus the desk thumping and slogan raising in the assemblies have become tedious and the threats of launching movements quite hollow. There is every indication that both sides have settled down to preserving the status quo, particularly when the MNAs have received a 100 per cent raise in salaries and allowances.

The responsibility for all this mess rests mainly on the shoulders of the superior judiciary. By taking recourse to the controversial doctrine of state necessity, they have condemned this country to a state of subjugation from which it can neither retreat nor advance.

The courts, including the Election Commission, are manned at all levels by political appointees. Upholding the law and the dictates of justice are the farthest from their minds and in many instances they do not even know what they are. It is said there are many judges who cannot read or understand the law without the aid of their stenos, who even write judgments for them. Sifarish in the judiciary has become as common a practice as in a police station.

It is, therefore, no wonder that most judges are more than ready to take oaths of allegiance to martial law. It is said that, in General Zia’s days, brigadiers went to the judges’ chambers in the higher courts and issued orders on what would be the verdict in which case. Living in such a state of disgrace it seems all the more laudable that an honest judge in Fiji has ruled that the military takeover in that country was illegal and in violation of the constitution. There is hope after all but not for the unfortunate people of this country. How can life go on in a country where there is no one to uphold the law and dispense justice and where everything is up for sale?

All the above is a synopsis of the state of anarchy which actually exists in the country but about which the rulers seem unconcerned. Of course if there was civilian rule, the generals would have marched in long ago but what happens now when there is already a military rule? We have seen that this can stretch to 11 years and then too it only ends when some disaster takes place. So do we pray for disaster or salvation? And what sort of salvation is it going to be if we have to go back to either Benazir Bhutto’s or Nawaz Sharif’s rule, which has already been rejected twice to the relief of the people, and which seems to be the only alternative?

Until a better choice appears we must settle for an adhoc arrangement. A council of Common Interests consisting of the heads of the three branches of the armed forces and two senior politicians, with an unimpeachable record, from each province must be set up. The council must run the country for one year with the realization that there are 140 million people who do not only matter the most but are the masters. They have to be served and this must start with removing corruption and incompetence in the entire machinery of the state as otherwise all reforms will be defeated.

This is a hard but not an impossible task. Once the council establishes its credentials as a touch, clean and competent body, by hitting out uncompromisingly at crooks, hypocrites, opportunists and self-servers who dominate our society, things will start falling in line rapidly. The three pillars of the state must be reconstructed on strong foundations. A genuinely independent Election Commission consisting of men of honour and integrity must be created. Fresh, clean and transparent elections, based on honest electoral rolls and justly demarcated constituencies, must be held. The rules must be enforced drastically and on the spot with no long drawn out and useless election petitions.

The council must ensure that the days of dictators are over by a genuine devolution of powers from the centre through the provinces right down to the union councils. The country must not be run from Islamabad downwards but from the union councils upwards. Article 6 of the Constitution must be applied through a judiciary worthy of the name. Recognizing the multinational character of the country and catering to it, the existing federal/unitary system of governance must be banished forever. Thus the grievances of the three small provinces will be removed, true democracy will take hold and Pakistan will emerge as a solid and stable state, at last on the path towards progress and development. This together with a realistic foreign policy, based strongly on friendship with neighbours, will provide Pakistan with a place in the firmament.

(Concluded)

The writer is chairman, Sindh National Front.